The Pervasive Use of Computational Artefacts Shaping Managers’ Cooperative Practices
Niki Chatzipanagiotou & David Randall
Abstract
The paper explores the nuanced use of computational artefacts in shaping the cooperative work practices of academic library managers. Grounded in a focused ethnographic study involving 21 middle managers from two academic libraries in Sweden and Australia, the research employed participant observation, formal and informal interviews, and document review. The empirical material was thematically analyzed within a conceptual framework using recognized computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) concepts to better understand a specific managerial context. We demonstrate how academic library managers engage in cooperative work practices, emphasizing the central role of computational artefacts. The observed cooperative practices, encompassing collaboration, communication, coordination, and decision-making, were conceptualized through the developed ‘3A Framework’ and highlight the interconnectedness of articulation work, awareness, and appropriation within a managerial context. Articulation work emerged as crucial for coordinating various activities, managing interdependencies, and ensuring a seamless workflow. Awareness played a vital role in supporting collaboration and minimizing disruptions, facilitated by computational artefacts. Appropriation, a dynamic and context-dependent process, underscored the evolving nature of managers' engagement with computational artefacts. The research contributes to our understanding of managerial work by offering insights into the dynamic, complex, and contextualized nature of their cooperative efforts in academic library settings. The ‘3A Framework’ serves as a tool for conceptualizing and analyzing the interconnected concepts of articulation work, awareness, and appropriation, shedding light on the nuanced interplay of these elements. The research also offers modest practical implications for management and library domains in computational artefact-mediated settings.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.