Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Catherine Durnell Cramton

dblp:149/8412 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 56% Human-robot interaction · 44%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing › remote collaboration
globally distributed teams
0.212015
In the Flow, Being Heard, and Having Opportunities: Sources of Power and Power Dynamics in Global Teams · CSCW 2015
Human-robot interaction › multi-party interaction
power dynamics
0.212015
In the Flow, Being Heard, and Having Opportunities: Sources of Power and Power Dynamics in Global Teams · CSCW 2015
Collaborative and social computing
computer-supported cooperative work
0.112015
In the Flow, Being Heard, and Having Opportunities: Sources of Power and Power Dynamics in Global Teams · CSCW 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

qualitative study · 0.2interview study · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 In the Flow, Being Heard, and Having Opportunities: Sources of Power and Power Dynamics in Global Teams
abstract
In our qualitative study of 9 globally distributed software development teams, we found that power and how it was distributed across locations had a significant effect on team dynamics. We describe the sources of power for these teams, which include being in the flow of information, feeling that one's voice is heard by decision makers, and having opportunities for career growth and advancement. We also examine power dynamics across locations by team and show that having more balanced power was typically associated with more power struggles rather than fewer. Four of the 9 teams had ongoing power contests. Each of these teams had some sources of power at one location and other sources of power at the other location. Both sites worried about losing power, felt they should have more, and struggled against losing ground. We conclude with a discussion of the need for CSCW to expand beyond collaboration to address issues of power. We propose ideas for systems to support globally distributed teams in creating more equal access to more sources of power and alleviating unhealthy power dynamics.
Pamela J. Hinds, Daniela Retelny, Catherine Durnell Cramton
CSCW3