Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

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

Trauth, Eileen M., Jessup, Leonard M.·2000·MIS Quarterly

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3250979

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

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

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.