Activity theory, speech acts, and the "doctrine of infelicity": Connecting language and technology in globally networked learning environments

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 323-357

  McNair, Lisa D ^a   Paretti, Marie C ^a  

^a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity theory; Global workplaces; Relational space; Speech acts; Virtual teams

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954001818     PISSN: 10506519     EISSN: 15524574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1050651910363275     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anawati, D., & Craig, A. (2006). Behavioral adaptation within cross-cultural virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49, 44-56.
2. Anson, C.M. (2006). Assessing writing in cross-curricular programs: Determining the locus of activity. Assessing Writing, 11, 100-112.
3. Artemeva, N. (2007). Becoming an engineering communicator: Novices learning engineering genres. Paper presented at the 4th International Symposium on Genre Studies, Tubarão, Brazil.
4. Artemeva, N. (2008). Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 160-185.
5. Austin, J.L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Banks, S., Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on advances in research on networked learning. Instructional Science, 31, 1-6.
7. Baskerville, R., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Activating and perpetuating virtual teams: Now that we're mobile, where do we go? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 17-34.
8. Bazerman, C. (1997). Discursively structured activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 296-308.
9. Coppola, N.W., Hiltz, S.R., & Rotter, N.G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47, 95-104.
10. Crowston, K., Howison, J., Masango, C., & Eseryel, U.Y. (2007). The role of face-to-face meetings in technology-supported self-organizing distributed teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 185-203.
11. Dannels, D.P. (2003). Teaching and learning design presentations in engineering: Contradictions between academic and workplace activity systems. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17, 139-169.
12. Desanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10, 693-703.
13. Dias, P. (2000). Writing classrooms as activity systems. In P. Dias & A. Pare (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 11-29). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
15. Farrell, L., & Holkner, B. (2004). Points of vulnerability and presence: Knowing and learning in globally networked communities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25, 133-144.
16. Ferreday, D., Hodgson, V., & Jones, C. (2006). Dialogue, language and identity: Critical issues for networked management learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 28, 223-239.
17. Fish, S. (1976). How to do things with Austin and Searle: Speech act theory and literary criticism. Modern Language Notes, 91, 983-1025.
18. Greenberg, P.S., Greenberg, R.H., & Antonucci, Y.L. (2007). Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Business Horizons, 50, 325-333.
19. Hung, D.W.L., & Wong, A.F.L. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for project work in learning environments. Educational Technology, 40, 33-37.
20. Hung, Y.T.C., Nguyen, D., Wei-Chang, K., & Ai-Ling, C. (2008). Reexamining media capacity theories using workplace instant messaging. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51, 352-368.
21. Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Leidner, D.E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3, 791-815.
22. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Shaw, T.R., & Staples, D.S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15, 250-256.
23. Jonassen, D.H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61-79.
24. Kain, D., & Wardle, E. (2005). Building context: Using activity theory to teach about genre in multi-major professional communication courses. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14, 113-139.
25. Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 117-130.
26. Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). Conceptualizing the awareness of collaboration: A qualitative study of a global virtual team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14, 301-322.
27. McNair, L.D., Paretti, M.C., & Davitt, M. (2010). Towards a pedagogy of relational space and trust: Analyzing distributed collaboration using discourse and speech act analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53, in press.
28. McNair, L.D., Paretti, M.C., & Kakar, A. (2008). Case study of prior knowledge: Expectations and identity constructions in interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, virtual collaboration. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24, 386-399.
29. Nardi, B.A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Nardi, B.A., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 83-110). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Olson, G., & Olson, J.S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-computer interaction, 15, 139-178.
32. Olson, J.S., Teasley, S., Covi, L., & Olson, G. (2002). The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 113-135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Paretti, M.C., & McNair, L.D. (2008). Communication in global virtual activity systems. In P. Zemliansky & K. St.Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on virtual workplaces and the new nature of business practices (pp. 24-38). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
34. Paretti, M.C., McNair, L.D., & Holloway-Attaway, L. (2007). Teaching technical communication in an era of distributed work: A case study of collaboration between U.S. and Swedish students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, 327-352.
35. Robert, L.P., & Dennis, A.R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 10-21.
36. Russell, D.R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
37. Schryer, C.F., Lingard, L., & Spafford, M. (2007). Regularized practices: Genres, improvisation, and identity formation in health-care professions. In M. Zachry & C. Thralls (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions (pp. 21-44). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
38. Searle, J. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley.
40. Spinuzzi, C. (1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5, 295-308.
41. Spinuzzi, C. (2007). Who killed Rex? Tracing a message through three kinds of networks. In M. Zachry & C. Thralls (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions (pp. 45-66). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
42. Swarts, J. (2004). Textual grounding: How people turn texts into tools. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34, 67-89.
43. Timmerman, C.E., & Madhavapeddi, S.N. (2008). Perceptions of organizational media richness: Channel expansion effects for electronic and traditional media across richness dimensions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51, 18-32.
44. Usoro, A., Sharratt, M.W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5, 199-212.
45. Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
46. Walther, J.B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828-846.
47. Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G., & McEvily, V. (2007). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 16-33.
48. Winner, L. (1999). Do artifacts have politics? In D. A. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (pp. 1-12). London: Open University Press.
49. Winsor, D.A. (2006). Using writing to structure agency: An examination of engineers' practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 411-430.
50. Winsor, D. (2007). Using texts to manage continuity and change in an activity system. In M. Zachry & C. Thralls (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions (pp. 3-20). Amityville, NY: Baywood.