Wikispaces : ut-cms - items matching description
Filtered items at Wikispaces : ut-cms
Amandas Reference Descriptions
November 19, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Thesis References by Catagorey
- Disaster Relief General
American Journal of Community Psychology (22), 639-661 2B [A2]]] (n.d.). Social work and disasters. Unpublished manuscript, Tulane
University 2A [A3]]] , T.E., Evans, J. (n.d.) Sociology, disasters, and emergency management: History,
contributions, and future agenda. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver.
2A [COCOMM4]]] Government Department Accountability Office. (2005). Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita: Provision of charitable assistance (GAO publication No. 06-297T). [COCOMM5]]] White House. (2006). The Federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons
learned.
- Disasters & ICTs
hurricane Katrina. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15 (3), 484-494. 4A [A7]]] . (1997). Problematical aspects of the information/ communication
revolution for disaster planning and research: Ten non-technical issues and questions. Disaster Prevention and Management Volume (6), 94-106. 4A [A8]]] , & Meadows, J. (1997). The role of information in disaster planning: A case
study approach. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6 (5), 349-355. 4A [A9]]] , T.M. (1999). Contingencies and communications in cyberspace: The World
Wide Web and non-hierarchical co-ordination. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 7 (4), 215-224. 4A [A10]]] , L.K. (1993). Integrating information technology into international crisis
management and policy. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1(1), 15-26. 4A [A11]]] n, R. & Anderson, P.S. (1997). Disasters and the information technology
revolution. Disasters, 21(4), 305-334.
- Disasters and Interorganizational Collaboration
network organizations. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 24(1), 67-97. [A13]]] . (1996). Interorganizational disaster relief. Social Work Research (20), 19-
30. 2B [A14]]] , T.E., & McEntire, D.A. (2003). Emergent phenomena and the sociology of
disaster: Lessons, trends and opportunities from the research literature. Disaster and Prevention Management (12), 97-112. 2A [A15]]] , & Meadows, J. (1997). The role of information in disaster planning: A case
study approach. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6 (5), 349-355. 4A [A16]]] , T.M. (1999). Contingencies and communications in cyberspace: The World
Wide Web and non-hierarchical co-ordination. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 7 (4), 215-224. 4A [A17]]] , L.K. (1993). Integrating information technology into international crisis
management and policy. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1(1), 15-26. 4A [A18]]] , H. (1997). Emergency inter-organizational relationships. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6 (5), 305-310. 5A
3b. Disaster’s, ICTs, & Interorganizational Network Structure
[A19]]] B. (1996). The potential impact of information technology on the structure ofinterorganizational relationships during crisis response: the Pennsylvania floods of 1996. Quick Response Report No. 85, Natural Hazards Center, Boulder [L20]]] Sungu, Y., Johnson, D. & Dunn, M. (2001). Complex systems in crisis:
Anticipation and resilience in dynamic environments. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 9(3), 144-158.
- Interorg. Collaboration General
|[A21]]] Lawrence, T. & Phillips, N. (1998). Talking action: Conversations, narrative
& action in interorganizational collaboration . Discourse and Organization,
Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A [A23]]] ., & Provan, K.G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational
relationships in a network of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15 (1), 149-165. 5B [A24]]] . & Lawrence, T.B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role
of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review (30),
58-77. 5B [A25]]] , K., & Desai, U. (2000). Mapping local government-nongovernmental
organization interactions: A conceptual framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 245-263. 5A [A26]]] l, M.L. & Taylor, M. (2004). Network dynamics of interorganizational cooperation: The Croatian civil society movement. Communication Monographs, 71 (4), 373-394. 5B [A27]]] , K.G., Carroll, S.J., & Ashford, S.J. (1995). Intra and interorganizational
cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Academy of Mangement Journal, 38 (1), 7-23. [A28]]] , G., Kogut, B., Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes, and the [A29]]] , A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedants, mechanisms, and
forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183-214.
- Interorg. Collaboration & ICTs
communities of knowing. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.327-367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A [A31]]] , L.D., & Sornes, J.O. Doing ICT research in Norway: A neo-technography. Unpublished manuscript.
A32]]] , A.J., Stohl, C., & Bimber, B. (2006). Modeling the structure of collective
action. Communication Monographs, 73 (1), 29-54. 5B
Press. 5A [A34]]] & Zmud, R.W. (1995). Improving interorganizational effectiveness through
voice mail facilitation of peer-to-peer relationships. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.369-397). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5B [A35]]] ., & King, J.L. (1995). Hardwiring weak ties: Interorganizational
computer-mediated communication, occupational communities, and organizational change. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.399-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5B [A36]]] , B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornethwaite, C.
(1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238. [COCOMM37]]] P.R. & Contractor, N.S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F.
Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A [COCOMM38]]] G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social
theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 5B [A39]]] , A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedants, mechanisms, and
forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183-214. [A40]]] ., A. Flanagin, M., Kalman, T. Ryan, & Monge, P.R. (1996) Connective and
communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory, 6, 60-87. [A41]]] L.M. (1999). In search of a new organizational model: Lessons from the field.
In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.33-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [A42]]] P.R. & Fulk, J. (1999). Communication technology for global network organizations. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.71-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Technology and Structure
|[COCOMM44]]] . & Gattiker, U.E. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F.
Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 6A
A45]]] C.C., Glick, W.H., Wand, Y., & Huber, G.P. (1991). Understanding technology-
structure relationships: Theory Development and Meta-Analytic Theory Testing. The Academy of Mangement Journal, 34(2), 370-399.
action. Communication Monographs, 73 (1), 29-54. 5B [A47]]] , J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution
Press. 5A [A48]]] & Young, D. R. (2003). The changing role of nonprofits in the network economy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (3), 397-414. 1A [A49]]] E., & Taylor, J. A. (2000). Information and communications technologies: Reshaping voluntary organizations? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(2), 131-143. 1B
|[A50]]] J.R., & Cour, S. (2003). Information technology and the voluntary sector
workplace. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (1), 5-24. 1A
In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.33-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [A52]]] DeSanctis, G. (1999). Articulation of communication technology and
organizational form. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.5-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [A53]]] P.R. & Fulk, J. (1999). Communication technology for global network organizations. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.71-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [A54]]] S.J. & Taylor, S.L. (1999). The role of information technology in the
transformation of work: A comparison of Postindustrial, Industrial and Protoindustrial organizations. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.101-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [A55]]] W.J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1999). Shaping electronic
communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.133-171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [A56]]] P.H., & Kiesler, S. (1999). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure,
and use of communication technologies in a large organization. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp. 211-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [A57]]] ., & McKenney, J.L. (1999). Social context and interaction in ongoing
computer-supported management groups. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.247-294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Method Useful Articles
of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review (30),
58-77. 5B [A59]]] , R.J., & Tenkasi, R.V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in
communities of knowing. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.327-367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A [A60]]] , C.C., Cardinal, L.B., & Glick, W.H. (1997). Retrospective reports in
organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 189-204. [A1]]]Advocates for service delivery networks, or interorg stuff in service delivery. More focused on the outcome of effective response than anything else. [A2]]]Great literature review source for social works perspectives on disaster. Talks about organizational type and interorganizational coordination. [A3]]]Very nice literature review of sociology’s role in disaster planning. Discusses technology and inter-org collaboration. [COCOMM4]]]Good Statistics and practical literature [COCOMM5]]]Good statistics and practical literature- background information [A6]]]Emphasizes the integration of communication and information systems in disaster planning. It is very ICT focused, but mainly discusses specific technologies (multi-band radios). It says this is necessary for coordinated response. This gives several examples of problems in Hurricane Katrina that could be used in developing my rationale. Brings to life the notion of ‘emergency communication systems’ [A7]]]Actually connects ICT’s and disaster planning explicitly. Makes a good point about needing structure and culture in org. to work first or ICT’s will fail. I do not buy all of their concerns, but keep these in mind when looking at the data.
A8]]]Talks about the importance of communication and information in disaster reponse. Suggests this is necessary for agencies to co-ordinate. Uses 3 case studies to conclude that need for rapid accurate information was paramount and that interviewees all suggested a flexible database system would be worth developing to improve this. Suggests that local knowledge is critical in developing a disaster response plan.
[A9]]]Great source to look at web specific findings. Uses case studies to make links between advantages of the Web for communications during disasters. It has a nice intro. and a nice segway into collaboration. [A10]]]This discusses 7 case studies of earthquakes to make claims about it and structure and decisionmaking. It stresses the importance of aligning org. structure and IT implementation. Great source for linking IT-structure-communication-collaboration. [A11]]]This is a large and comprehensive review of technology development from the early 1970’s thru the late 1990’s. It also includes some predictions for long-term which would be where we are at in 2006. It might be nice to use some of this as beckground to describe the general role of IT in disaster management. I could "pick up" where he leaves off in the late 1990's, because basically it will be 10 years later. He looks at where we have been in four parts: the 1970's, the first half of the 1980's, late 1980's, and the 1990's. In the 1970's he talks about mainframes, emerging network technology, and appearance of microprocessors. A key development in this peiod was a substantial change in power relationships. In the early 1980's, practical digital radio communications developed. Talks a lot about radio in this section. In the late 1980's he suggests that the growth of local area networks and microcomputers shifted information resources away from centralized units towards individual departments. This also marked the beggining of GIS. But, the most decisive innovation beetn 1986 nd 1990 was in communications technology: email. Also, bulletin boards were staring to be developed. The 1990's focused on relationships between users. Changes in connectivity and data access had profound effects on organizational structures. However, much of this was delayed in emergency mangement: they seem to be behind the times. Interest in GIS also grew during this period. Things began to change radiple in 1993-1994 with the introduction of Gopher, which was later replaced by HTTP. Eventually this became the World Wide Web. They suggest that new technologies have two features: capacity to reach large audiences and the ability to engender a sense of community. However, they suggest that we still know relatively little about the real impact of IT on emeregency related activity. There is no clear methodology that appears to exist to analyze this. He makes some observations about general trends sucha s increase in networks and broadband speed etc. Take a look at his longer term predictions to see if they are correct: that systems will become increasingly transparant, relaible, invisible and ubiquitous. He also suggests that data quantity will become completely overwhelming. [A12]]]Excellent source for understanding networks formation as disaster response. Uses a network analytic method of the Exxon Valdez spill. Tests three distinct network perspectives derived from the literature. Their way of categorizing these perspectives is a great way for me to get my mind around the network literature. Great Source! [A13]]]This is a study that creates a path model of coordination looking at geographic distance, cooperative links, and number or regular volunteers. [A14]]]Gets at organizational structure in that it focuses on emergent phenomna- it is a big literature review of emergent phenomena and might be a nice way to frame my thesis. It debunks the command-and-control model of disaster relief. [A15]]]Talks about the importance of communication and information in disaster reponse. Suggests this is necessary for agencies to co-ordinate. Uses 3 case studies to conclude that need for rapid accurate information was paramount and that interviewees all suggested a flexible database system would be worth developing to improve this. Suggests that local knowledge is critical in developing a disaster response plan. [A16]]]Great source to look at web specific findings. Uses case studies to make links between advantages of the Web for communications during disasters. It has a nice intro. and a nice segway into collaboration. [A17]]]This discusses 7 case studies of earthquakes to make claims about it and structure and decisionmaking. It stresses the importance of aligning org. structure and IT implementation. Great source for linking IT-structure-communication-collaboration. [A18]]]Discusses the importance and difficulties of interorganizational co-ordination in emergency response. If focuses on emergency communication between organizations and discusses structure, particularly bureacracy. It suggests that this form is problematic to emergency planning. If advocates ad hoc channels in turbulent environments. Talks about conflict in interorganizational co-ordination. Suggests types of IOF's (I might suggest how type relates to ICT use). Reccomends planning and use of boundary spanners to improve this co-ordination. [A19]]]This article is a key article to my study. It is looking at exactly the same factors I am but uses different methods. In this study, the author examines the 1996 floods of Pannsylvania and uses observational and media coverage analysis to extablish the interorganizational relationships between the response organizations during two different time periods. Time 1 is the direct five days after the response, and time 2 is five days after that. The analysis of media coverage grouped organizations into sector and affiliation, and then each relationship identified was assigned a clasification. Sector described the primary service area of the organization (Education, Government, Healthcare) and the levels of affiliation were these three: local, state and federal. The author identified three types of affiliations on this analysis: dependency, works with, and same service. From this analysis, the authors identifys a netwrk for each type of affiliation for both time periods. Overall, the response was characterized by a high level of local government involvement. They then performed a network centrality and clique analysis on the three types of networks. Across the board, there were less central organizations in the time 1 netwroks. This suggests that direct response after the disaster was very decentralized. Then, the authors shifts gears to information technology. Specifically, she explores 3 things: current use of IT within these networks, the barriers to the use of IT for crisis response, and the potential use and impact of IT use on network structure. The authors used observations and interviews to determine these answers. She found that current IT use for interorganizational coordination was varied and nonsystematic, and often relegated to the "tech group" and often not used because of misunderstandings between organizations. They suggest barriers to use were technical, organizational, and political, but do not expound upon this at all. This finding is very vague. For the last issue of IT, the author only talks about the "potnetial" impact IT could have on the network structure, so she actually does not present any real findings here. She hypothesixes that IT could build stronger relationships and thus lead to more interaction during crisis response and thus lead to a more centralized network. However, she also offers the possibility that it could lead to a more decentralized network by enabling more organizations to participate. Overall, she concludes that the role of IT in the structuration of the response network is unclear. She saw no evidence that IT facilitated interorganizational response, increased coordination, and reduced response time. Instead she said IT is used in an Ad Hoc fashion both within and between organizations. [L20]]]Nice empirical study of a specific type of technology called Interactive, Intellegent, spatial information systems (IISIS) for decision support. Good source for theoretical frame of complexity and self-organizing. The authors anaylyzed a University in the developmental phase of implementing one of these systems to help anticipate and respond to possible hazardous materials emergencies. Their method was to look at the total number of organizations that would need to be involved in setting up such a system (N) and determine the purpose or goal of sucha system (P) and considered the source of funding for participating organizations (S) and looked at the interactions among participating organizations (K) - seep.148. They determined a great deal of this with interview data. The best part about this study is the framework- they use a systems perspective of complex adaptive systems and self organizaing systems. It also identifies the anticipation phase of planning vs. the resiliance (response) phase. They suggest that achieving self organization for both technical and organizational (the people part) systems is important to coordinating action between levels of organizations. They suggest that through learning, coordination becomes mutual adaptation, or self-organization. The article focuses on two types of information processing systems: 1) the technical system of computers; 2) the human cognitive system of decision makers and thier respective organizations. They use Weick as a source. From this they introduce the idea of "sociotechnical systems" - for private use in emergency response organizations and for possible public use.|[A21]]]This is a great source for rationalizing my method of study for collaboration. It says that collective action is generated by conversational activity and content that produces shared meaning. This perspective is a combination of discourse, narrative theory, discourse, and microsociologists work. They present a model of talk and action arguing that the activity and content of conversations discursively produce identities, skills, and emotions, which in turn produce action. They then apply this model to a case study of an interorganizational collaboration in which the authors sat in on meetings and took filed notes as well as conducting some interviews. This might be a good model for my links between talk from interviews to making claims of how this impacts the network structure.
[COCOMM22]]]Great source for theoretical approaches to network formation- especially good in the last pages. [A23]]]Longitudinal study of nonprofits in an existing human services network. Its main intent is to compare assumptions about nonprofit networks with research on private interorganizational links. It focuses on development of interorganizational dyads over time, and is a quantitative study. It has a good discussion of reputation and trust and formality of links. [A24]]]Very interesting rhetorical perspective of collaboration. Privelages communication and social construction of reality. Could be impt. to preparedness phase of disaster relief. However, its ultimate goal is to describe this effect of discourse on collective identity for the purposes of describing what makes an effective collaboration. [A25]]]Focuses specifically on local governments and the interaction with NGO’s. It compares social functions of govt’s vs. NGO’s and how they complement eachother. This is examined specifically in policy, politics, and economics. Talks about social capital as trust and norms. Mainly it hypothesizes about their differing roles and the conditions under which they would collaborate. [A26]]]This is a quantitative study of a civil society collaboration . That looks at cooperation vs. competition, resource dependency, and structural holes. Some of the findings of structural holes might be useful in my analysis of this collaboration. [A27]]]This is a review of the literature on cooperation. It puts forth a nice definition of cooperation, and the various dimensions of it: informal vs. formal, horizontal vs. vertical. It describes the difference between cooperation and coordination. It suggests that new research is needed to understand cooperation in light of new organizational forms. It says that trust and past experience is impt., and factors that allow spontaneous cooperation to occur needs to be better understood. It also has several things to say about conducting macro-level research. It looks specifically at Dr. Browning's Sematech article! It has a section addressing both antecedants, the dynamics of , and outcomes of cooperation. Also offers the major theoretical explanations that accompany this work- see what is said about social structural theories (network theory as part of that). It suggests a multi-theoretical approach is best. Possible Understanding: Cooperation->Coordination->Collaboration. [A28]]]This is a good empirical source for understanding social capital in network formation. This paper compares the theory of social capital to that of structural holes and finds that social capital is the better predictor of cooperation over time. The authors suggest that structural holes theory works better for market rather than cooperative relationships. Importantly this article also asserts that social capital is a form of structure. [A29]]]This is a borad overview of the network literature and discusses it in three major categories: antecendants, cooperative mechanisms, and the resulting network forms. It provides a definition of a network and introduces the word "inter-firm". It describes antecedant research from the economic, economic-sociological, and sociological perspectives. It clears up the relationship between networks and coordination. (networks cooperate in order to coordinate). Importantly, it describes information systems as a coordinating mechanism of a network. Perhaps I could use the rationale that little is known about this mechanism, or that ICTs are more than a coordiantion mechanism. Ohter important mechanisms include the degree of formality and centralizatiuion in the network form. It suggests a type of network form that sounds like the COA_TRT: Social network b/c of the informal agreements. (asymetric & centralized). [A30]]]Very qualitative approach- it combines a rational model of collaboration and knowledge with a narrative approach. Talks about having communication technologies that foster both and perspective taking and making. It speaks also to emergent organizations. Talks about mapping narrative structures and different types of forums to foster the “Knowledge Organization”|[A31]]]This is Dr. Brownings ethnography on the process of doing international research in a collaboration. It is an example of a nice way to start a paper with a story, and how to incorporate theory in a tacit way. It also offers an interesting explanation of neo-technography, which might be of use to me later in my thesis process. It also explains Actor Network Theory which is a useful theory for thinking about technology use in collaboration.
[A32]]]Suggests collective action is a communicative phenomenon and that new forms due to ICTs are emerging and changing the nature of collective action. They propose a ‘collective action space' which differentaites communication and behavior by mode of interaction and mode of engagement. Discusses differences between network vs. bureacratic forms. Suggests peoples actions actually dictate structure. Makes a link between new ICTs and new organizational forms. [A33]]]This is the text from Chapman’s class. This suggests several important points about the structure & culture behind organizations as so critical to effective ICT use in organizations. It also suggests something about changes in future organizational form.|[A34]]]Nice example of a tight study- but it is quantitative. Very IOR driven, but it’s outcome is assessing inter-org. effectiveness.
[A35]]]Introduces the term Interorg. Computer-mediated Communication as (ICMC). Shows the importance of ICMC’s b/c they can strengthen weak ties – however the study focuses on occupational communities (well-educated professionals). [A36]]]Broad overview of the effects of CMC use. Not a lot of depth, and it pays a bit more attention to the individual as a unit of anlysis. However, it may come in handy later. [COCOMM37]]]Great source for theoretical approaches to network formation- especially good in the last pages. [COCOMM38]]]A good source for looking at technology and collective action- it is actually from the handbook chapter on networks [A39]]]This is a borad overview of the network literature and discusses it in three major categories: antecendants, cooperative mechanisms, and the resulting network forms. It provides a definition of a network and introduces the word "inter-firm". It describes antecedant research from the economic, economic-sociological, and sociological perspectives. It clears up the relationship between networks and coordination. (networks cooperate in order to coordinate). Importantly, it describes information systems as a coordinating mechanism of a network. Perhaps I could use the rationale that little is known about this mechanism, or that ICTs are more than a coordiantion mechanism. Ohter important mechanisms include the degree of formality and centralizatiuion in the network form. It suggests a type of network form that sounds like the COA_TRT: Social network b/c of the informal agreements. (asymetric & centralized). [A40]]]This is an excellent source that focuses on interactive communication systems in light of the thory of public goods. This might be a nice theory to consider how the COA-TRT enacts ICTS This considers inforamtion a public good, as well as an interactive communication meduim (ex: telephone system). The public good thoery makes claims about heterogenity of a group, which is rationale for why I might be considering differences between group type. It points to the impt. of interdependance to make these systems work...The article basically suggests that there are two public goods resulting from communication and information systems: Connectivity and communality. So, it clearly shows that technology can provide connectivity and communality and thus is important in understanding interorg. collaboration. It also characterizes connectivity as both physical and social.It also makes several claims about the role of government in facilitating and regulating these public goods (COA-TRT is essentailly that). Possible refined RQ: How does the governentmal role as central to this network enable or constrain it? See last page for future research suggestion where my study fits well. [A41]]]Very nice Qualitative empirical study of intra-organizational changes in form and the role of ICTs in that. The design challenge that is traditionally thought of as a trade off between centralization and decentralization is actually a mix- a third type of design she calls the information age authority. This she says is necessary to mangage change in environment and complexity. It provides a nice history of technology and organization form. It also gives a nice overview of the hierarchical model and then explains the information age model. She makes several conclusions about power and control. [A42]]]Describes global network organizations and their relationship to IT. What is usefule is the description of external network forms and network linkages. They also describe ICTs for both internal and external forms of networks.They suggest that changes in the network linkages have implications for organizational form. [COCOMM43]]]Need to read this if this is going to be the theoretical underpinning of my study.COCOMM44]]]This is a good source for the relationship between technology and structure- Does not point to future directions though.
[A45]]]This is a met-analysis of 31 empirical studies specifically exploring the technology construct of “routiness” relationship to the structural constructs of centralization, formalization, and specialization. Importantly it finds that contingency variables such as organizational size and definitions of technology do not matter as much to the tech/structure relationship as does method variables. The unit of analisys (organization, subunit, individual) and the level of industry heterogeneity did matter. This is a good source to look at when thinking about my unit of anlysis and perhaps in arguing for my methods choices. This is however, entirely quantitative. [A46]]]Suggests collective action is a communicative phenomenon and that new forms due to ICTs are emerging and changing the nature of collective action. They propose a ‘collective action space' which differentaites communication and behavior by mode of interaction and mode of engagement. Discusses differences between network vs. bureacratic forms. Suggests peoples actions actually dictate structure. Makes a link between new ICTs and new organizational forms.A47]]]This is the text from Chapman’s class. This suggests several important points about the structure & culture behind organizations as so critical to effective ICT use in organizations. It also suggests something about changes in future organizational form.
[A48]]]Talks about the transformation of the network economy on non-profits. Really specializes the nonprofit as more responsive b/c they are local and closer to the community- makes some implicit comparisons between organization type: nonprofits, govt., and business. [A49]]]Very utopian view of how ICT’s can reconfigure nonprofits internally and externally- talks about collaboration a bit. It is a case study of 2 organizations.A50]]]Focuses on how information technology transforms nonprofit jobs. Looks at changes across organizational levels and is a qualitative study. Has a good methods section. Findings discuss changes in workload and perceived power and job satisfaction. It briefly discusses nonprofit IT use in elation to govt. It also begins to raise questions about how culture might mediate the effects of IT in nonprofits.
[A51]]]Very nice Qualitative empirical study of intra-organizational changes in form and the role of ICTs in that. The design challenge that is traditionally thought of as a trade off between centralization and decentralization is actually a mix- a third type of design she calls the information age authority. This she says is necessary to mangage change in environment and complexity. It provides a nice history of technology and organization form. It also gives a nice overview of the hierarchical model and then explains the information age model. She makes several conclusions about power and control. [A52]]]Must read this before coding data again! Is a great summary of the relationships between org. form and ICTs. It describes the interplay between technology and form with a structuration perspective and suggests that changes in form and technology occur via four key aspects: 1) organizations size, scope, and product domain, 2) verticle control, 3) horizontal coordination, 4) types of connection. It suggests that organizational structures are designed to meet communication needs of the org: such as to explain the need for the network form in disaster response. But, comm. tech also shapes org form. It describes three perspectives, and clearly mine is the emergent perspective, though I am not sure how this will work into my thesis. It then discusses the five attributes of comm technology that offer impt. advances for organizations. Sugggests importantly that interorg. collaboration is so highly dependant on relationships and trust, so it will be important to understand how these relationships look when facilitated electronically. This is a possible rationale for my study! It then talks about types of new connection, and describes the network form in detail. [A53]]]Describes global network organizations and their relationship to IT. What is usefule is the description of external network forms and network linkages. They also describe ICTs for both internal and external forms of networks.They suggest that changes in the network linkages have implications for organizational form. [A54]]]This is a very nice historical overview of the shifts in work from proto industrial to industrial to postindustrial. Use the historical background as a story to begin my thesis! Her main suggestion is that there is not enough empirical evidence to suggest that technology has been responsible for the changes in organizing over the last several hundered years. She suggests that instead you must also consider economic, culrtual and soaicl conditions, and gives examples of each of these. Basically, it goes against the majority of the literature which makes causual assertions between changes to more flexible forms of organizing and that faciliatation by information technology. It reminds me to combine a social constructionist perspective in my work. [A55]]]Excellent empirical qualitative/content analysis study to start of my technology structuring section. It has a great methods section I can use as an example. They find in their data, four types of technology structing that they summarize as “technology-use mediating”. This extends adaptive structuration theories of technology by looking not at the individual user, but individuals who actively and deliberately mediate users activities with an newgroup technology. It suggest this is a type of contextualization of technology which is important to consider given the new dynamic forms of organizing we see now. This gives me a rationale for studying technology use in the context of emergency response organizations. The ycall technology-use mediation a form of “metastructuring”. The identify four types of mediating activities: establishment, reinforcement, adjustment, and episodic change. They then discussed the outcomes of these as more efficient communication, which came directly from interview data. Ultimatley they suggest that contextualizing technology is important to it's effectivenss. They depict nice figures of thier fndings and do really good graphs. I should look at these as part of my thesis. They suggest that technology use mediation structures the institutional, interpretive, and technological rules and resources that users draw upon when they use thier technology. [A56]]]This is an okay empirical quantitative study of the use of telephone, voicemail, and email within and across a formal organizational hierarchy. The main point of the study is to compare this use of technical workers vs. administrative workers. This is all done under the larger heading of the network organization, suggesting there are differences is these networks. Findings show that technical workers do in fact communicate more laterally than administrative workers. All employees used the telephone more when communicating laterally and out of the chain of command. This study may be important since the COA-TRT is really a high-tech network. [A57]]]This is a very detailed multi-methodological study comparing two organizations email and FTF interactions. The point of the study is to examine hoe social context and social interaction influence CMC use. It has a nice literature review on structuration theory that I could use in my paper. It combines this with a social network perspective, much as I intend to do, but it did a network analysis to make claims. They propose that a groups social structure is influenced by its social context. Structure=overall patterns of interaction. Social context= culture, norms, habits. So this study mainly looks at the influence of social context on social structure via structuration theory. Also incorporates some social information processing theory. They do a nice job of mapping out how they operationalize their theoretical constructs via a graph (p.256). I should do the same. They specifically examine social context by looking at the communication climate, management philosophy, and philos- to denote level of cooperation within a group.I might be able to qualitatively assess interorganizational philos! They operationalize the social structure by doing a network analysis (how could I do this qualitatively?) The case stie was their primary unit of analysis, but the secondary embedded analysis was the interactions between people, rather than the individual. These two sites had some very similar social contexts such as the type of technology and the type of work they performed, yet had very different social contexts such as the communication climate and management philosophy. After a network ananlysis of communication structures and patterns, they determined that social context greatly influenced the ways in which these two groups used email and FTF. Thus social context impacts the ways in which groups adopts and adapts communication technologies.|[A58]]]Very interesting rhetorical perspective of collaboration. Privelages communication and social construction of reality. Could be impt. to preparedness phase of disaster relief. However, its ultimate goal is to describe this effect of discourse on collective identity for the purposes of describing what makes an effective collaboration.
|[A59]]]Very qualitative approach- it combines a rational model of collaboration and knowledge with a narrative approach. Talks about having communication technologies that foster both and perspective taking and making. It speaks also to emergent organizations. Talks about mapping narrative structures and different types of forums to foster the “Knowledge Organization”
[A60]]]This is an okay source about retrospective accounts which makes a good point or justification for my method to collect stories. It describes the “free report” method where you give participants the options to say they do not remember something if that is the case. Discussion in a free recall format as opposed to being asked to answer specific questions results in higher accuracy, hence, my justifications for asking participants to recall the story of their experience.Amandas Thesis Reference List
May 21, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Amanda's Thesis References
Applegate, L.M. (1999). In search of a new organizational model: Lessons from the field. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.33-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Banipal, K. (2006). Strategic approach to disaster management: lessons learned from hurricane Katrina. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15 (3), 484-494. 4A
Boland, R.J., & Tenkasi, R.V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in
communities of knowing. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.327-367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A
Browning, L.D., & Sornes, J.O. Doing ICT research in Norway: A neo-technography. Unpublished manuscript.
Burt, R.S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action: Network models of stratification, perception, and action. New York: Academic Press.
Burt, E., & Taylor, J. A. (2000). Information and communications technologies: Reshaping voluntary organizations? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(2), 131-143. 1B
Camagni, R. (1993). Inter-firm industrial networks: The costs and benefits of cooperative behavior. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(1), 1-15.
Comfort, L.K. (1993). Integrating information technology into international crisis management and policy. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1(1), 15-26. 4A
Comfort, L.K. (1990). Turning conflict into co-operation: Organizational designs for community response in disasters. International Journal of Mental Health, 19(1), 89-108.
Comfort, L.K., Woods, T.M., & Nesbitt, J.E. (1990). Designing an emergency information system: The Pittsburg experience. Advances in Telecommunications Management, 3, 13-33.
Sungu, Y., Johnson, D. & Dunn, M. (2001). Complex systems in crisis: Anticipation and resilience in dynamic environments. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 9(3), 144
Contractor, N.S. & Eisenberg, E.M. (1990). Communication networks and new media in organizations. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 143-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Deutsch, K.W. (1963). The nerves of government. New York: The Free Press.
Doerfel, M.L. & Taylor, M. (2004). Network dynamics of interorganizational cooperation: The Croatian civil society movement. Communication Monographs, 71 (4), 373-394. 5B
Drabek, T.E., Evans, J. (n.d.) Sociology, disasters, and emergency management: History, contributions, and future agenda. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver. 2A
Drabek, T.E., & McEntire, D.A. (2003). Emergent phenomena and the sociology of disaster: Lessons, trends and opportunities from the research literature. Disaster and Prevention Management (12), 97-112. 2A
Flanagin, A.J., Stohl, C., & Bimber, B. (2006). Modeling the structure of collectiveaction. Communication Monographs, 73 (1), 29-54. 5B
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 5A
Fulk, J. & DeSanctis, G. (1999). Articulation of communication technology and organizational form. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.5-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fulk, J., A. Flanagin, M., Kalman, T. Ryan, & Monge, P.R. (1996) Connective and communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory, 6, 60-87.
Gant, D.B. (1996). The potential impact of information technology on the structure of interorganizational relationships during crisis response: the Pennsylvania floods of 1996. Quick Response Report No. 85, Natural Hazards Center, Boulder.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkely: University of California Press.
Gillespie, D.F., & Murty, S.A. (1994). Cracks in a postdisaster delivery service network. American Journal of Community Psychology (22), 639-661 2B
Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedants, mechanisms, and forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183-214.
Granot, H. (1997). Emergency inter-organizational relationships. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6 (5), 305-310. 5A
Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T.B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review (30), 58-77. 5B
[[#_msocom_1|]] Lawrence, T. & Phillips, N. (1998). Talking action: Conversations, narrative& action in interorganizational collaboration . Discourse and Organization,
Harrell, E.B. & Zakour, M.J. (2000) Including informal organizations in disaster planning: Development of a range of type measure. Tulane Studies in Social Welfare, 21, 61-83.
Hinds, P.H., & Kiesler, S. (1999). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp. 211-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Isett, K.R., & Provan, K.G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational relationships in a network of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15 (1), 149-165. 5B
Krackhardt, D. (1994) Constraints on the interactive organization as the ideal type. In C. Heckscher & A. Donnellon (Eds.), The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change (pp.211-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
LaPorte, T.M. (1999). Contingencies and communications in cyberspace: The World Wide Web and non-hierarchical co-ordination. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 7 (4), 215-224. 4A
Lawrence, T.B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002) Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 281-290.
Lind, M.R., & Zmud, R.W. (1995). Improving interorganizational effectiveness through voice mail facilitation of peer-to-peer relationships. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.369-397). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5B
Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 5B
Miller, C.C., Cardinal, L.B., & Glick, W.H. (1997). Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 189-204.
Miller, C.C., Glick, W.H., Wand, Y., & Huber, G.P. (1991). Understanding technology-structure relationships: Theory Development and Meta-Analytic Theory Testing. The Academy of Mangement Journal, 34(2), 370-399.
Monge, P.R. & Contractor, N.S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A
Monge, P.R. & Fulk, J. (1999). Communication technology for global network organizations. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.71-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. (1992). Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Pickering, J.M., & King, J.L. (1995). Hardwiring weak ties: Interorganizational computer-mediated communication, occupational communities, and organizational change. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.399-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5B
Poole, M.S. (1999). Organizational challenges for the new forms. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.453-471). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1999). Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.133-171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Quarantelli, E.L. (1997). Problematical aspects of the information/ communication revolution for disaster planning and research: Ten non-technical issues and questions. Disaster Prevention and Management Volume (6), 94-106. 4A
Quarantelli, E.L. (1982). Social and organizational problems in a major emergency. Emergency Planning Digest, 9, 7-21.
Resnick, P. (2005). Impersonal sociotechnical capital, ICTs, and collective action among strangers. In W. Dutton, B. Kahin, R. O’Callaghan, & A. Wyckoff (Eds.), Transforming enterprise (pp.486-499). Boston: MIT Press.
Rice, R.E. & Gattiker, U.E. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 6A
Riley, J., & Meadows, J. (1997). The role of information in disaster planning: A case study approach. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6 (5), 349-355. 4A
Rodrigiez, H., Wachtendorf, T., & Russell, C. ( 2004). Disaster research in the social sciences: Lessons learned, challenges, and future trajectories. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(2), 117-136.
Saidel, J.R., & Cour, S. (2003). Information technology and the voluntary sector workplace. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (1), 5-24. 1A
Simon, H.A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press
Smith, K.G., Carroll, S.J., & Ashford, S.J. (1995). Intra and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Academy of Mangement Journal, 38 (1), 7-23.
Snavely, K., & Desai, U. (2000). Mapping local government-nongovernmental organization interactions: A conceptual framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 245-263. 5A
Stephenson, R. & Anderson, P.S. (1997). Disasters and the information technology
revolution. Disasters, 21(4), 305-334.
Stohl, C. (2001). Globalizing organizational communication. In F. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 323-375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, J.R. & Van Every, E.J. (1993). The vunerable fortress: Bureacratic organization in the information age. Toronto: Univeristy of Toronto
Te’eni, D. & Young, D. R. (2003). The changing role of nonprofits in the network economy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (3), 397-414. 1A
Topper, CM. & Carley, K.M. (1999). A structural perspective on the emergence of network organizations. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 24(1), 67-97.
United States Government Department Accountability Office. (2005). Hurricanes Katrinaand Rita: Provision of charitable assistance (GAO publication No. 06-297T).
United States White House. (2006). The Federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons learned.
Walker, G., Kogut, B., Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes, and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2), 109-125.
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornethwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238.
Winter, S.J. & Taylor, S.L. (1999). The role of information technology in the transformation of work: A comparison of Postindustrial, Industrial and Protoindustrial organizations. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.101-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yamamoto, Y. (1981). Inductive theory of inter-organizational co-ordination in crises. Newark, DE: DRC.
Zach, M.H., & McKenney, J.L. (1999). Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported management groups. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.247-294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zakour, M.J. (n.d.). Social work and disasters. Unpublished manuscript, Tulane University 2A
Zakour, M.J. (1996). Interorganizational disaster relief. Social Work Research (20), 19-30. 2B
Zakour, M.J. & Gillespie, D.F. (1999) Collaboration and competition among nonprofit and governmental organizations during disasters. In Crossing the borders: Collaboration and competition among nonprofits, business, and government (pp. 495-506). Alexandria, VA: Independent Sector
.
Amandas Thesis Reference List by Catagorey
November 19, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Thesis References by Catagorey
- Disaster Relief General
Gillespie, D.F., & Murty, S.A. (1994). Cracks in a postdisaster delivery service network.
American Journal of Community Psychology (22), 639-661 2B
Zakour, M.J. (n.d.). Social work and disasters. Unpublished manuscript, Tulane
University 2A
Drabek, T.E., Evans, J. (n.d.) Sociology, disasters, and emergency management: History,
contributions, and future agenda. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver.
2A
United States Government Department Accountability Office. (2005). Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita: Provision of charitable assistance (GAO publication No. 06-297T).
United States White House. (2006). The Federal response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons
learned.
- Disasters & ICTs
Banipal, K. (2006). Strategic approach to disaster management: lessons learned from
hurricane Katrina. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15 (3), 484-494. 4A
Quarantelli, E.L. (1997). Problematical aspects of the information/ communication
revolution for disaster planning and research: Ten non-technical issues and questions. Disaster Prevention and Management Volume (6), 94-106. 4A
Riley, J., & Meadows, J. (1997). The role of information in disaster planning: A case
study approach. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6 (5), 349-355. 4A
LaPorte, T.M. (1999). Contingencies and communications in cyberspace: The World
Wide Web and non-hierarchical co-ordination. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 7 (4), 215-224. 4A
Comfort, L.K. (1993). Integrating information technology into international crisis
management and policy. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1(1), 15-26. 4A
Stephenson, R. & Anderson, P.S. (1997). Disasters and the information technology
revolution. Disasters, 21(4), 305-334.
- Disasters and Interorganizational Collaboration
Topper, CM. & Carley, K.M. (1999). A structural perspective on the emergence of
network organizations. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 24(1), 67-97.
Zakour, M.J. (1996). Interorganizational disaster relief. Social Work Research (20), 19-
30. 2B
Drabek, T.E., & McEntire, D.A. (2003). Emergent phenomena and the sociology of
disaster: Lessons, trends and opportunities from the research literature. Disaster and Prevention Management (12), 97-112. 2A
Riley, J., & Meadows, J. (1997). The role of information in disaster planning: A case
study approach. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6 (5), 349-355. 4A
LaPorte, T.M. (1999). Contingencies and communications in cyberspace: The World
Wide Web and non-hierarchical co-ordination. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 7 (4), 215-224. 4A
Comfort, L.K. (1993). Integrating information technology into international crisis
management and policy. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1(1), 15-26. 4A
Granot, H. (1997). Emergency inter-organizational relationships. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6 (5), 305-310. 5A
3b. Disaster’s, ICTs, & Interorganizational Network Structure
Gant, D.B. (1996). The potential impact of information technology on the structure of
interorganizational relationships during crisis response: the Pennsylvania floods of 1996. Quick Response Report No. 85, Natural Hazards Center, Boulder
Comfort, L.K., Sungu, Y., Johnson, D. & Dunn, M. (2001). Complex systems in crisis:
Anticipation and resilience in dynamic environments. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 9(3), 144-158.
- Interorg. Collaboration General
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. & Phillips, N. (1998). Talking action: Conversations, narrative
& action in interorganizational collaboration . Discourse and Organization,
Monge, P.R. & Contractor, N.S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F.
Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A
Isett, K.R., & Provan, K.G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational
relationships in a network of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15 (1), 149-165. 5B
Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T.B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role
of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review (30),
58-77. 5B
Snavely, K., & Desai, U. (2000). Mapping local government-nongovernmental
organization interactions: A conceptual framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 245-263. 5A
Doerfel, M.L. & Taylor, M. (2004). Network dynamics of interorganizational cooperation: The Croatian civil society movement. Communication Monographs, 71 (4), 373-394. 5B
Smith, K.G., Carroll, S.J., & Ashford, S.J. (1995). Intra and interorganizational
cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Academy of Mangement Journal, 38 (1), 7-23.
Walker, G., Kogut, B., Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes, and the
formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2), 109-125.
Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedants, mechanisms, and
forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183-214.
- Interorg. Collaboration & ICTs
Boland, R.J., & Tenkasi, R.V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in
communities of knowing. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.327-367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A
Browning, L.D., & Sornes, J.O. Doing ICT research in Norway: A neo-technography. Unpublished manuscript.
Flanagin, A.J., Stohl, C., & Bimber, B. (2006). Modeling the structure of collective
action. Communication Monographs, 73 (1), 29-54. 5B
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution
Press. 5A
Lind, M.R., & Zmud, R.W. (1995). Improving interorganizational effectiveness through
voice mail facilitation of peer-to-peer relationships. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.369-397). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5B
Pickering, J.M., & King, J.L. (1995). Hardwiring weak ties: Interorganizational
computer-mediated communication, occupational communities, and organizational change. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.399-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5B
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornethwaite, C.
(1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238.
Monge, P.R. & Contractor, N.S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F.
Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A
Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social
theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 5B
Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedants, mechanisms, and
forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183-214.
Fulk, J., A. Flanagin, M., Kalman, T. Ryan, & Monge, P.R. (1996) Connective and
communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory, 6, 60-87.
Applegate, L.M. (1999). In search of a new organizational model: Lessons from the field.
In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.33-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Monge, P.R. & Fulk, J. (1999). Communication technology for global network organizations. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.71-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Technology and Structure
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkely: University of California Press.
Rice, R.E. & Gattiker, U.E. (2001). New media and organizational structuring. In F.
Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.544-581). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 6A
Miller, C.C., Glick, W.H., Wand, Y., & Huber, G.P. (1991). Understanding technology-
structure relationships: Theory Development and Meta-Analytic Theory Testing. The Academy of Mangement Journal, 34(2), 370-399.
Flanagin, A.J., Stohl, C., & Bimber, B. (2006). Modeling the structure of collective
action. Communication Monographs, 73 (1), 29-54. 5B
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution
Press. 5A
Te’eni, D. & Young, D. R. (2003). The changing role of nonprofits in the network economy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (3), 397-414. 1A
Burt, E., & Taylor, J. A. (2000). Information and communications technologies: Reshaping voluntary organizations? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(2), 131-143. 1B
Saidel, J.R., & Cour, S. (2003). Information technology and the voluntary sector
workplace. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (1), 5-24. 1A
Applegate, L.M. (1999). In search of a new organizational model: Lessons from the field.
In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.33-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fulk, J. & DeSanctis, G. (1999). Articulation of communication technology and
organizational form. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.5-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Monge, P.R. & Fulk, J. (1999). Communication technology for global network organizations. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.71-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Winter, S.J. & Taylor, S.L. (1999). The role of information technology in the
transformation of work: A comparison of Postindustrial, Industrial and Protoindustrial organizations. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.101-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1999). Shaping electronic
communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.133-171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hinds, P.H., & Kiesler, S. (1999). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure,
and use of communication technologies in a large organization. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp. 211-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zach, M.H., & McKenney, J.L. (1999). Social context and interaction in ongoing
computer-supported management groups. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.247-294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Method Useful Articles
Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T.B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role
of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review (30),
58-77. 5B
Boland, R.J., & Tenkasi, R.V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in
communities of knowing. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.327-367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5A
Miller, C.C., Cardinal, L.B., & Glick, W.H. (1997). Retrospective reports in
organizational research: A reexamination of recent evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 189-204.
barnes_94_cmc_in_org.pdf
February 7, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Media files
barnes_94_cmc_in_org.pdf (Adobe PDF document, 1.3 MB)
Boczkowski99
May 21, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Boczkowski discusses constraints, triggers, and enablements related to the technology, users, and broader structural forces. For him, this approach “broadens our understanding of the technology-user relationship in CMC by examining the dynamics of mutual shaping…” (p. 104).
Communication Technologies
May 21, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Theories of CT Use/Nonuse
Technologically-deterministic explanations of CT use
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in organizational behavior, 6, 191-223.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Socially-deterministic explanations of CT use
Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 921-950.
Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfeld, C. W. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology, (pp. 117-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Adaptive structuration
Poole, M.S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk and C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 18, 5-49.
Duality of technology - considers technology (and other structures) as they influence and are influenced by use (influenced by Giddens)
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398-427.
Mutual shaping perspective - highlights technologies and users, as well as the mutual influence of technology use and structure
Boczkowski, P. J. (1999). Mutual shaping of users and technologies in a national virtual community. Journal of Communication, 49, 86-98.
Lievrouw, L. A. (2006). New media design and development: Diffusion of innovations v. social shaping of technology. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The handbook of new media: Updated student edition pp. 247-265). London: Sage.
.
compton_91_techno_sense.pdf
February 7, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Media files
compton_91_techno_sense.pdf (Adobe PDF document, 1.3 MB)
consent_letter.doc
February 12, 2006 at 12:54 PM
Media files
consent_letter.doc (Microsoft Word 97 - 2004 template, 31.5 KB)
Eisenberg&Riley01
May 21, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Organizational culture is expressed through artifacts such as language. Eisenberg and Riley (2001) recognize “the symbolic character of ordinary language and the ways in which cultural meanings are coconstructed in everyday conversation, textual evidence or patterns, and also the entire nonverbal, semiotic field” (p. 295).
Culture is expressed through (and in some ways shaped by) communication technology use. Eisenberg and Riley (2001) summarize, “technology plays a key role in the structuring of behavior – of space, time, and interaction patterns” (p. 315).
Fulk93
May 21, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Fulk (1993) found that close peers influence a person’s attitude toward and use of communication technologies in the workplace.
home
January 29, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Communication projects...
Literature
Macro Case Study
Wikis
Jenn's dissertation ideas
Interview_Questions.doc
February 19, 2006 at 4:36 PM
Media files
Interview_Questions.doc (Microsoft Word 97 - 2004 template, 23.0 KB)
IRB_proposal.doc
February 7, 2006 at 2:39 PM
Media files
IRB_proposal.doc (Microsoft Word 97 - 2004 template, 43.0 KB)
IRB_proposal_2-10.doc
February 10, 2006 at 4:19 PM
Media files
IRB_proposal_2-10.doc (Microsoft Word 97 - 2004 template, 54.0 KB)
IRB_proposal_2-11.doc
February 12, 2006 at 2:25 PM
Media files
IRB_proposal_2-11.doc (Microsoft Word 97 - 2004 template, 62.5 KB)
IRB_proposal_2-19.doc
February 19, 2006 at 7:21 PM
Media files
IRB_proposal_2-19.doc (Microsoft Word 97 - 2004 template, 61.5 KB)
IRB_proposal_2-8.doc
February 8, 2006 at 7:22 AM
Media files
IRB_proposal_2-8.doc (Microsoft Word 97 - 2004 template, 45.0 KB)
IRB_proposal_2-9.doc
February 9, 2006 at 9:48 AM
Media files
IRB_proposal_2-9.doc (Microsoft Word 97 - 2004 template, 51.0 KB)
Jenn's dissertation ideas
January 29, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Keywords
Tags
Folksonomy
Networks
Narrative
Culture
Organizing
Information
Web 2.0
bubbl.us mind map
Kilduff&Corley00
May 21, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Kilduff and Corley suggest one way for researchers to study network structures is from an integration perspective that “emphasizes harmony and homogeneity, and focuses on shared values and assumptions” (p. 215). A network integration approach to organizational culture investigates consensus by asking “How much consensus exists in the organization concerning different cultural elements?, as well as schemas by asking “Where does the shared knowledge underlying cultural consensus come from?” (p. 215)