The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two perspectives on mobile email usage
Abstract
This paper offers a study of contradiction in the usage of mobile email. Using qualitative data, the paper identifies mobile email usage patterns that are dangerous, distracting, anti-social and that infringe on work-life boundaries. Mobile email users were forthcoming in describing these dysfunctional usage patterns, but they made a convincing argument that their mobile devices are highly functional and allow them to be efficient, to multitask without disruption to others, and to respond immediately to messages, as well as offering them the freedom to work from anywhere. These dual perspectives on mobile email (dys)functionality are explored through a metaphorical lens, showing how organisational cultures can reinforce the functional perspective while simultaneously suppressing the dysfunctional view. It is argued that it is important to understand and explore the dysfunctional perspective of mobile email adoption. The paper concludes with a series of questions that challenge organisations to reflect critically on their assumptions about mobile email usage.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Driven to Distraction: Dual-Task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone
Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00386 · Cited by 1,134
Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress and family satisfaction
Chesley, N. (2005) · Journal of Marriage and Family · doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00213.x · Cited by 506
A disaster for everyone to see: An interpretive analysis of a failed is project
Myers, M. D. (1994) · Accounting, Management and Information Technologies · doi:10.1016/0959-8022(94)90022-1 · Cited by 203
Cited by
The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0806 · Cited by 1,364
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016) · Psychology of Popular Media Culture · doi:10.1037/ppm0000065 · Cited by 643
E-mail as a source and symbol of stress
Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E., & Grodal, S. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0573 · Cited by 637
New Ways of Working: Impact on Working Conditions, Work–Family Balance, and Well-Being
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2014) · The Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_8 · Cited by 256
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2016.04.010 · Cited by 225
Metadata
- Authors
- Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W.
- Venue
- European Journal of Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 252-260
- ISSN
- 0960-085X (ISSN-L)
- 1476-9344
- OpenAlex
- W2000955602
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 23.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
