The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Computer-Mediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support System Use1
Abstract
This research considers whether interpretive techniques can be used to enhance our understanding of computer-mediated discussions. The case study considered in this research is the use of a group support system (GSS) to support employee discussions about gender equity in a university. Transcripts of the four discussions were analyzed using two analysis techniques: a positivist approach, which was focused on the GSS sessions themselves, and an interpretive approach which broadened the scope to include contextual considerations as well. What emerged from the positivist analysis was the conclusion of effective group behavior directed toward consensus around alternative solution scenarios. What emerged from the interpretive analysis was evidence of multiple, rich types of information at three levels: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. The interpretive analysis also uncovered the absence of shared consciousness about the issue and imbalanced participation in the sessions. Comparison of the results of both approaches showed that, while the positivist analysis provided useful information, the interpretive analysis provided a different understanding of the same evidence and new information not found in the positivist analysis of the group discussions. This research adds to the body of knowledge concerning the effects of virtual group meetings on the type of information that is shared and the value of a combination of positivist and interpretive analyses of GSS data.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 2×
“This triangulation is the rationale for mixed methods research (Trauth and O'Connor 1991), particularly that which employs both quantitative and qualitative methods (Greene et al. 1989; Jick 1979; Kaplan and Duchon 1988).”
MethodResultToward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 · Cited by 5,687
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986) · doi:10.4135/9781412985659 · Cited by 1,462
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
Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology
Mingers, J. (2001) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709 · Cited by 1,380
Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036550 · Cited by 976
The Vicious Circles of Skill Erosion: A Case Study of Cognitive Automation
Rinta-Kahila, T., The University of Queensland Business School, Penttinen, E., Aalto University School of Business, Salovaara, A., Aalto University / University of Helsinki, Soliman, W., University of Agder, N. /. U. O. J., Ruissalo, J., & Aalto University School of Business (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00829 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Trauth, E. M., & Jessup, L. M.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2000-03-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-79
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2125028729
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 17.56
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding Computer-Mediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support System Use1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3250979
- The paper
- Trauth, E. M., & Jessup, L. M. (2000). Understanding Computer-Mediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support System Use1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250979
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.