Using the framework of conversation analysis, the author examines the structure of interaction in computer-mediated team meetings, focusing on the openings and closings of the team's four virtual meetings. The author describes how the medium, quasisynchronous chat (QSC), disrupts the temporal flow of conversation and makes beginning and ending these informally structured meetings difficult. The author finds that the team, as a result, evolved a two-stage process for both opening and closing the meetings, which allowed them to make consistent use of certain linguistic and conversational devices to mark possible transition points for openings and closings. The author discusses how these virtual meetings compare to face-to-face interactions and some possible implications for the use of QSC for virtual team meetings.
Alge, B.J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H.J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 26-37.
2.
Aoki, K. (1995). Synchronous multi-user textual communication in international tele-collaboration. Electronic Journal of Communication , 5(4). Retrieved January 13, 2004, from http://80-www.cios.org.content.lib.utexas.edu:2048/getfile%5CAOKI_V5N495
3.
Balthazard, P.A., Potter, R.E., & Warren, J. (2004). Expertise, extraversion and group interaction styles as performance indicators in virtual teams. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 41-64.
4.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S.J. (1997). Managing language: The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
5.
Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk, 27, 273-296.
6.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action . Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
7.
Boden, D. (1995). Agendas and arrangements: Everyday negotiations in meetings. In A. Firth (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 83-99). Oxford: Pergamon.
8.
Brown, H.G., Poole, M.S., & Rodgers, T.L. (2004). Interpersonal traits, complementarity, and trust in virtual collaboration. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 115-137.
9.
Burnett, C. (2003). Learning to chat: Tutor participation in synchronous online chat. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 247-261.
10.
Carletta, J., Anderson, A.H., & McEwan, R. (2000). The effects of multimedia communication technology on non-collocated teams: A case study. Ergonomics, 43, 1237-1251.
11.
Clifton, J. (2006). A conversation analytical approach to business communication: The case of leadership. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 202-219.
12.
Colomb, G.G., & Simutis, J.A. (1996). Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 203-222). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
13.
Cooren, F. (2004). The communicative achievement of collective minding: Analysis of Board meeting excerpts. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 517-551.
14.
Cooren, F. (2006). Arguments for the in-depth study of organizational interactions: A rejoinder to McPhee, Myers, and Trethewey. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 327-340.
15.
Cooren, F. (Ed.). (2007). Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Cooren, F., & Taylor, J.R. (1997). Organization as an effect of mediation: Redefining the link between organization and communication. Communication Theory, 7, 219-260.
17.
Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 20, 183-193.
18.
Davidson-Shivers, G.V., Muilenburg, L.Y., & Tanner, E.J. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 351-366.
19.
DeSanctis, G., Poole, M.S., Dickson, G.W., & Jackson, B.M. (1993). Interpretive analysis of team use of group technologies . Journal of Organizational Computing, 3(1), 1-29.
20.
Furst, S., Blackburn, R., & Rosen, B. (1999). Virtual team effectiveness: a proposed research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 9, 249-269.
21.
Garcia, A.C., & Jacobs, J.B. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 32, 337-367.
22.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23.
Graetz, K.A., Boyle, E.S., Kimble, C.E., Thompson, P., & Garloch, J.L. (1998). Information sharing, face-to-face teleconferencing, and electronic chat groups. Small Group Research, 29, 714-743.
24.
Grosjean, M. (2004). From multi-participant talk to genuine polylogue: Shift-change briefing sessions at the hospital. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 25-52.
25.
Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4). Retrieved May 4, 2003, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/herring.html
26.
Housley, W. (1999). Role as an interactional device and resource in multidisciplinary team meetings. Sociological Research Online , 4, U119-U137.
27.
Hughes, J.A., O'Brien, J., Randall, D., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2001). Some "real" problems of "virtual" organisation . New Technology, Work and Employment, 16, 49-64.
28.
Ingram, A.L., Hathorn, L.G., & Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the internet. Computers & Education, 35, 21-35.
29.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Leidner, D.E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams . Organization Science, 10, 791-815.
30.
Kangasharju, H. (2002). Alignment in disagreement: Forming oppositional alliances in committee meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1447-1471.
31.
Lerner, G.H. (1996). On the "semi-permeable" character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker . In E. Ochs et al. (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238-276). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R.E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S.L. (2000). Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter- organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24, 569-600.
33.
Markman, K.M. (2005). To send or not to send: Turn construction in computer-mediated chat. In C. Sunakawa et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twelfth annual Symposium About Language and Society-Austin (Vol. 48, pp. 115-124). Austin: Texas Linguistic Forum.
34.
Markman, K.M. (2006a). Computer-mediated conversation: The organization of talk in chat-based virtual team meetings. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(12A), 4388. (UMI No. 3244348)
35.
Markman, K.M. (2006b, November). Following the thread: Turn organization in computer-mediated chat. Paper presented at the Ninety-second annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
36.
Maznevski, M.L., & Chudoba, K.M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473-492.
37.
McPherson, J.S. (2005, November). High-tech organizational change in the public sector: Micropractices of cultural control in competing work teams . Paper presented at the National Communication Association annual meeting, Boston, MA.
38.
Mirivel, J.C., & Tracy, K. (2005). Premeeting talk: An organizationally crucial form of talk. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 38, 1-34.
39.
O'Neill, J., & Martin, D. (2003). Text chat in action. In, Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 40-49). New York: ACM Press .
40.
Panyametheekul, S., & Herring, S.C. (2003). Gender and turn allocation in a Thai chat room . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(1). Retrieved April 3, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol9/issue1/panya_herring.html
41.
Pauleen, D.J., & Yoong, P. (2001). Facilitating virtual team relationships via the Internet and conventional communication channels. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 11, 190-202.
42.
Pomerantz, A., & Denvir, P. (2007). Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. In F. Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting (pp. 31-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
Potter, R.E., & Balthazard, P.A. (2002). Virtual team interaction styles: Assessment and effects. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 423-443.
44.
Rasters, G., Vissers, G., & Dankbaar, B. (2002). An inside look: Rich communication through lean media in a virtual research team. Small Group Research, 33, 718-754.
45.
Repman, J., Zinskie, C., & Carlson, R.D. (2005). Effective use of CMC tools in interactive online learning. Computers in the Schools, 22(1-2), 57-69.
46.
Rintel, E.S., Mulholland, J., & Pittam, J. (2001). First things first: Internet Relay Chat openings . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(3). Retrieved May 5, 2003, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue3/rintel.html
47.
Rintel, E.S., & Pittam, J. (1997). Strangers in a strange land - Interaction management on Internet relay chat. Human Communication Research, 23, 507-534.
48.
Rintel, E.S., Pittam, J., & Mulholland, J. (2003). Time will tell: Ambiguous non-responses on Internet relay Chat. Electronic Journal of Communication, 13(1). Retrieved January 13, 2004, from http://80-www.cios.org.content.lib.utexas.edu:2048getfile%5CRINTEL_V13N1
49.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
50.
Schegloff, E.A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of "coherence" in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (Vol. 38, pp. 51-77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
51.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 161-216.
52.
Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1974). Opening up closings. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings (pp. 233-264). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Education.
53.
Schmidt, J.B., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., & Massey, A.P. (2001). New product development decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 32, 575-600.
54.
Schonfeldt, J., & Golato, A. (2003). Repair in chats: A conversation analytic approach . Research on Language & Social Interaction, 36, 241-284.
55.
Schwartzman, H.B. (1989). The Meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities . New York: Plenum Press.
56.
Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 337-361.
57.
Taylor, J.R., & Robichaud, D. (2004). Finding the organization in the communication: Discourse as action and sensemaking. Organization, 11, 395-413.
58.
ten Have, P. (2000). Computer-mediated chat: Ways of finding chat partners . M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture, 3(4). Retrieved May 5, 2003, from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0008/partners.php
59.
Timmerman, C.E., & Scott, C.R. (2006). Virtually working: Communicative and structural predictors of media use and key outcomes in virtual work teams. Communication Monographs, 73, 108-136.
60.
Tracy, K., & Dimock, A. (2004). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. In P. J. Kabfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 127-165). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
61.
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.
62.
Werry, C.C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
63.
Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G., & McEvily, B. (2006). 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.
64.
Zemel, A., & Cakir, M.P. (2007, November). Reading's work: The mechanisms of online chat as social interaction. Paper presented at the Ninety-third annual meeting of the National Communication Association , Chicago, IL.
65.
Zitzen, M., & Stein, D. (2004). Chat and conversation: A case of transmedial stability ? Linguistics, 42, 983-1021.
