Do media really affect perceptions and procedural structuring among partially-distributed groups?

Journal of Systems and Information Technology

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 33-58

  Burke, Kelly ^a   Aytes, Kregg ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT HILO   (United States)

^b IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Group support systems; Interaction analysis; Media support; Procedural ordering; Structuration

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992933282     PISSN: 13287265     EISSN: 17588847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/13287260180000758     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Burgoon, M., Heston, J., & McrCrosky, J. (1974) Small Group Communication: A functional approach. Holt, Reinhart, & Winston, New York.
2. Burke, K., Aytes, K., Chidambaram, L., and Johnson, J., (1999) “A Study of Partially Distributed Work Groups: The Impact of Media, Location, and Time on Perceptions and Performance.” Small Group Research, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 453-490.
3. Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986) “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design,” Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 554-571.
4. Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley, CA; University of California Press.
5. Hirokawa, R. Y. & Pace, R. (1983) “A descriptive investigation of the possible communication-based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision-making.” Communication Monographs, (50), pp. 363-379.
6. Hirokawa, R.Y., Ice, R., & Cook, J. “Preference for procedural order, discussion structure, and group decision performance.” Communication Quarterly, 1988. 36 (3), pp. 217-226.
7. Lea, M. (1991) “Rationalist Assumptions in Cross-media Comparisons of Computer-mediated Communication,” Behavior and Information Technology, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 153-172.
8. Markus, M.L., (1994) “Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice,” Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 502-527.
9. McGrath, J.E. (1991) “Time, Interaction and Performance (TIP): A Theory of Groups,” Small Group Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 147-174.
10. Mintzberg, H. Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976) “The structure of “unstructured” decision processes.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, pp. 246-275.
11. Nixon, C.T. and Ltllepage, G.E. (1992) “Impact of meeting procedure on meeting effectiveness.” Journal of Business and Psychology, 6 (3), Spring, pp. 361-369.
12. Putnam, L. (1979) “Preference for procedural order in task-oriented small groups.” Communication Monographs, 46, pp. 193-218.
13. Trevino, L.K., Daft, R., and Lengel, R.H. (1990) “Understanding Managers' Media Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective,” in J. Fulk and C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 71-94.
14. Valacich, J.S., Mennecke, B.E., Wachter, R., and Wheeler, B.C. (1994) “Extensions to Media Richness Theory: A Test of the Task-Media Fit Hypothesis,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Vol. IV., pp. 11-20.
15. Walther, J.B. (1992) “Interpersonal Effects in Computer Mediated Communication: A Relational Perspective,” Communication Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 52-90.
16. Walther, J.B. (1996) “Computer-mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Interaction,” Communication Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 3-43.
17. Wheeler, B.C., Mennecke, B., and Scudder, J. N. (1993) “Restrictive group support systems as a source of process structure for high and low procedural order for groups.” Small Group Research, 24 (4) pp. 504-522.
18. Wheeler, B.C. & Valacich, J. S., (1996) “Facilitation, GSS, and training as sources of process restrictiveness and guidance for structured group decision making: An empirical assessment.” Information Systems Research, 7 (4) pp. 429-450.
19. Zack, M.H. (1993) “Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing Management Groups,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 4, No. 3., pp. 207-239.