Remote Work References

Top resources:

 
Olson, G. M. & Olson, J. Distance Matters. Human Computer Interaction 15, 139–178 (2000).
Hinds, P. J. & Bailey, D. E. Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams. Organization Science 14, 615–632 (2003). http://services.carstensorensen.com/media/HindsBailey2004.pdf 
 
 

Talk resources

 
1.
Bayerl, P. S. & Lauche, K. Coordinating high-interdependency tasks in asymmetric distributed teams. in Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work 417–426 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2008). doi:10.1145/1460563.1460631.
2.
Bergum, S. Telemanagement of distributed organizations: background, communication patterns, management requirements and consequences. in Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research  - SIGCPR ’96 378–380 (ACM Press, 1996). doi:10.1145/238857.372759.
3.
Bjørn, P., Esbensen, M., Jensen, R. E. & Matthiesen, S. Does Distance Still Matter? Revisiting the CSCW Fundamentals on Distributed Collaboration. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 21, 27:1-27:26 (2014).
4.
Bradner, E. & Mark, G. Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception. in Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work 226–235 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2002). doi:10.1145/587078.587110.
5.
Brucks, M. S. & Levav, J. Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Nature 605, 108–112 (2022).
6.
Caravella, E., Shivener, R. & Narayanamoorthy, N. Surveying the Effects of Remote Communication & Collaboration Practices on Game Developers Amid a Pandemic. Commun. Des. Q. Rev 10, 5–15 (2023).
7.
Carmody, D. et al. The effect of co-location on human communication networks. Nat Comput Sci 2, 494–503 (2022).
8.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R. & Rotter, N. G. Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 47, 95–104 (2004).
9.
Diamant, E. I., Fussell, S. R. & Lo, F. Where did we turn wrong? unpacking the effect of culture and technology on attributions of team performance. in Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work 383–392 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2008). doi:10.1145/1460563.1460625.
10.
Fitter, N. T. et al. Closeness is Key over Long Distances: Effects of Interpersonal Closeness on Telepresence Experience. in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 499–507 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020). doi:10.1145/3319502.3374785.
11.
Ford, D., Milewicz, R. & Serebrenik, A. How Remote Work Can Foster a More Inclusive Environment for Transgender Developers. in 2019 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (GE) 9–12 (IEEE, 2019). doi:10.1109/GE.2019.00011.
12.
Gao, G., Hinds, P. & Zhao, C. Closure vs. structural holes: how social network information and culture affect choice of collaborators. in Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work 5–18 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2013). doi:10.1145/2441776.2441781.
13.
Glinz, M. & Fricker, S. A. On shared understanding in software engineering: an essay. Comput Sci Res Dev 30, 363–376 (2015).
14.
Grudin, J. Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluationof organizational interfaces. in Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW ’88 85–93 (ACM Press, 1988). doi:10.1145/62266.62273.
15.
Hacker, J. V., Johnson, M., Saunders, C. & Thayer, A. L. Trust in Virtual Teams: A Multidisciplinary Review and Integration. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 23, (2019).
16.
Herbsleb, J. D., Mockus, A., Finholt, T. A. & Grinter, R. E. Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration. in Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work 319–328 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2000). doi:10.1145/358916.359003.
17.
Higa, K., Sivakumar, V., Yen, J. & Bui, T. X. Comparison of telework in the US and Japan: a cultural contingency model. in Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research  - SIGCPR ’96 351–359 (ACM Press, 1996). doi:10.1145/238857.238919.
18.
Hinds, P. J. & Bailey, D. E. Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams. Organization Science 14, 615–632 (2003).
19.
Hinds, P. J. & Cramton, C. D. Situated Coworker Familiarity: How Site Visits Transform Relationships Among Distributed Workers. Organization Science 25, 794–814 (2014).
20.
Hinds, P. J. & Mortensen, M. Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science (2005).
21.
Hinds, P. & McGrath, C. Structures that work: social structure, work structure and coordination ease in geographically distributed teams. in Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work 343–352 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2006). doi:10.1145/1180875.1180928.
22.
Hinds, P., Retelny, D. & Cramton, C. In the Flow, Being Heard, and Having Opportunities: Sources of Power and Power Dynamics in Global Teams. in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing 864–875 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2015). doi:10.1145/2675133.2675199.
23.
Hochschild, A. R. The time bind: when work becomes home and home becomes work. (Holt, 2000).
24.
Hu, X. E., Hinds, R., Valentine, M. & Bernstein, M. S. A ‘Distance Matters’ Paradox: Facilitating Intra-Team Collaboration Can Harm Inter-Team Collaboration. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, 48:1-48:36 (2022).
25.
Jackson, S. J., Ribes, D., Buyuktur, A. & Bowker, G. C. Collaborative rhythm: temporal dissonance and alignment in collaborative scientific work. in Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work 245–254 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2011). doi:10.1145/1958824.1958861.
26.
Jackson, V., van der Hoek, A. & Prikladnicki, R. Collaboration tool choices and use in remote software teams: emerging results from an ongoing study. in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering 76–80 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022). doi:10.1145/3528579.3529171.
27.
Jung, M. F., Martelaro, N. & Hinds, P. J. Using Robots to Moderate Team Conflict: The Case of Repairing Violations. in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 229–236 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2015). doi:10.1145/2696454.2696460.
28.
Kim, S., Billinghurst, M. & Lee, G. The Effect of Collaboration Styles and View Independence on Video-Mediated Remote Collaboration. Comput Supported Coop Work 27, 569–607 (2018).
29.
Kim, T., Hinds, P. & Pentland, A. Awareness as an antidote to distance: making distributed groups cooperative and consistent. in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1237–1246 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2012). doi:10.1145/2145204.2145391.
30.
Koehne, B., Shih, P. C. & Olson, J. S. Remote and alone: coping with being the remote member on the team. in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1257–1266 (ACM, 2012). doi:10.1145/2145204.2145393.
31.
Korver Michan, R. & Bjørn, P. Sources of miscommunication in email: searching for contextual information in communication between chinese and danish collaborators. in Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Intercultural Collaboration 21–30 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2012). doi:10.1145/2160881.2160886.
32.
Kütt, G. H. et al. Effects of Shared Gaze on Audio- Versus Text-Based Remote Collaborations. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, 136:1-136:25 (2020).
33.
Lee, M. K., Fruchter, N. & Dabbish, L. Making Decisions From a Distance: The Impact of Technological Mediation on Riskiness and Dehumanization. in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing 1576–1589 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2015). doi:10.1145/2675133.2675288.
34.
Lopez, G. & Guerrero, L. A. Awareness Supporting Technologies used in Collaborative Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing 808–820 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2017). doi:10.1145/2998181.2998281.
35.
Matthiesen, S. & Bjørn, P. When Distribution of Tasks and Skills are Fundamentally Problematic: A Failure Story from Global Software Outsourcing. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, 74:1-74:16 (2017).
36.
Muller, M. et al. Learning from Team and Group Diversity: Nurturing and Benefiting from our Heterogeneity. in Conference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing 498–505 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2019). doi:10.1145/3311957.3359440.
37.
Olson, J. S. & Olson, G. M. How to make distance work work. interactions 21, 28–35 (2014).
38.
Prikladnicki, R., Perin, M. & Marczak, S. Virtual Team Configurations that Promote Better Product Quality. in Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement 1–5 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016). doi:10.1145/2961111.2962638.
39.
Robert, L. P. A multi-level analysis of the impact of shared leadership in diverse virtual teams. in Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work 363–374 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2013). doi:10.1145/2441776.2441818.
40.
Robert, L. P. Far but Near or Near but Far? The Effects of Perceived Distance on the Relationship between Geographic Dispersion and Perceived Diversity. in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2461–2473 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016). doi:10.1145/2858036.2858534.
41.
Sack, W. et al. A Methodological Framework for Socio-Cognitive Analyses of Collaborative Design of Open Source Software. Comput Supported Coop Work 15, 229–250 (2006).
42.
Swezey, C. & Vertesi, J. Working Apart, Together: The Challenges of Co-Work. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, 204:1-204:22 (2019).
43.
Tang, J. C., Zhao, C., Cao, X. & Inkpen, K. Your time zone or mine? a study of globally time zone-shifted collaboration. in Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work 235–244 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2011). doi:10.1145/1958824.1958860.
44.
Veinott, E. S., Olson, J., Olson, G. M. & Fu, X. Video helps remote work: speakers who need to negotiate common ground benefit from seeing each other. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems the CHI is the limit - CHI ’99 302–309 (ACM Press, 1999). doi:10.1145/302979.303067.
45.
Wang, D. et al. Organizational Distance Also Matters: How Organizational Distance Among Industrial Research Teams Affect Their Research Productivity. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, 453:1-453:18 (2022).
46.
Ward, W. S. & Given, L. M. Assessing intercultural communication: Testing technology tools for information sharing in multinational research teams. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 70, 338–350 (2019).
47.
Warshaw, J., Whittaker, S., Matthews, T. & Smith, B. A. When Distance Doesn’t Really Matter: Effects of Geographic Dispersion on Participation in Online Enterprise Communities. in Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing 335–345 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016). doi:10.1145/2818048.2835237.
48.
Yang, C.-L., Yamashita, N., Kuzuoka, H., Wang, H.-C. & Foong, E. Distance Matters to Weak Ties: Exploring How Workers Perceive Their Strongly- and Weakly-Connected Collaborators in Remote Workplaces. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, 44:1-44:26 (2022).
49.
Zhou, S., Valentine, M. & Bernstein, M. S. In Search of the Dream Team: Temporally Constrained Multi-Armed Bandits for Identifying Effective Team Structures. in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–13 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2018). doi:10.1145/3173574.3173682.