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.
? Tutorial for this page

Fen-Ly Lo

dblp:77/3802 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—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 · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing › computer-mediated communication
computer-mediated collaboration
0.112008
Where did we turn wrong?: unpacking the effect of culture and technology on attributions of team performance · CSCW 2008

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

laboratory study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 Where did we turn wrong?: unpacking the effect of culture and technology on attributions of team performance
abstract
Computer-mediated collaboration is becoming an increasingly prevalent form of work ([22]). At the same time, organizations are relying more and more on culturally diverse teams to staff knowledge-intensive projects (e.g., software development, customer service, corporate training,). We conducted a laboratory study examining the role of collaborative technologies and culture on 2-person team members' attributions of causes for their collaborative performance. Pairs of American, Chinese, and intercultural American-Chinese students collaborated on two map navigation tasks using one of three technologies: video, audio, or IM. As predicted, culture and technology interacted to affect the extent to which members attributed performance to dispositional factors (e.g., personality or mood) vs. situational factors (e.g., the technology or task difficulty). We discuss the implications of our results for
E. Ilana Diamant, Susan R. Fussell, Fen-Ly Lo
CSCW3