Abstract
Historically, studies of Group Decision Support (GDS) have focused on assessing the degree to which using a GDS makes groups more effective, typically via carefully designed experiments and case study reports. More recently, we have witnessed a growing interest in getting close to GDS practitioners to see how their work is actually done in “real time,” “there-and-then.” What motivates this interest is the recognition that in order to develop better GDS practice we must first pay attention to how it is actually used by those involved in situ. By zooming in on what GDS practitioners actually do with their craft, and the critical role of these doings on generating group outputs and outcomes, a more nuanced understanding of GDS practice can be achieved. Furthermore, this understanding can inform the development of more effective GDS practitioner training and teaching materials. In this chapter we introduce a particular way of studying GDS practice, “as it happens” on the ground, based on ethnomethodology (EM). To illustrate the approach, we provide an example of its application to study GDS practice in a facilitated, computer-supported causal mapping workshop. Overall, the analysis reveals the various ways in which actual GDS practice is accomplished over time, as it happens on the ground, and with what effects. We conclude the chapter by summarizing the distinctive contribution that an ethnomethodologically informed perspective makes to GDS theory and practice, and outlining some potentially useful avenues for future research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Whilst the most common approach to qualitative research is to derive theory from observation inductively using a grounded theoretical approach to coding, White et al use theory (and the coding scheme associated with the theory) to guide their empirical observations, so that the theory gets further specified through a process of abductive reasoning.
- 2.
Group Explorer has now been upgraded to support same-time/different-places workshops -see Group Support Systems: Experiments with an Online System and Implications for Same-Time/Different-Places Working.
References
Ackermann F, Eden C (2010) Strategic Options Development and Analysis. In M. Reynolds, and S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide: 135-190. London: Springer
Ackermann F, Eden C (2011) Negotiation in strategy making teams: group support systems and the process of cognitive change. Group Decis Negot 20(3):293–314
Ackermann F, Andersen DF, Eden C, Richardson GP (2011) ScriptsMap: a tool for designing multi-method policy-making workshops. Omega 39:427–434
Ackermann F, Eden C, Pyrko I (2016) Accelerated multi-organization conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 25:901–922
Ackermann F, Yearworth M, White L (2018) Micro-processes in group decision and negotiation: practices and routines for supporting decision making. Group Decis Negot 27(5):709–713
Andersen DF, Richardson G (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):107–129
Barkhi R, Pirkul H (1999) An experimental analysis of face to face versus computer mediated communication channels. Group Decis Negot 8(4):325–347
Beroggi GE (2000) An experimental investigation of virtual negotiations with dynamic plots. Group Decis Negot 9(5):415–429
Brocklesby J (2009) Ethics beyond the model: How social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science. Omega 37(6):1073–1082
Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Finn CB (2004) Visible Thinking: unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Wiley, Chichester
Burger K, White L, Yearworth M (2018) Why so serious? theorising playful model-driven group decision support with situated affectivity. Group Decis Negot 27(5):789–810
Button G (ed) (1993) Technology in working order: studies of work, interaction, and technology. Routledge, London
Callon M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law J (ed) Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp 196–233
Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organiz Sci 15:555–568
DeSanctis G, Poole MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organiz Sci 5(2):121–147
Doolittle PE (2014) Complex constructivism: a theoretical model of complexity and cognition. Int J Teach Learn Higher Educ 26(3):485–498
Drew P, Heritage J (1992) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res 36(1):1–13
Eden C (1990a) The unfolding nature of group decision support: two dimensions of skill. In: Eden C, Radford J (eds) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London, pp 48–52
Eden C (1990b) Managing the environment as a means to managing complexity. In C. Eden, and J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London, pp 154–161
Eden C (1992) A framework for thinking about group decision support systems (GDSS). Group Decis Negot 1:199–218
Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3):673–686
Eden C, Ackermann F (2001) Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decis Negot 10(2):119–140
Eden C, Ackermann F (2010) Decision making in groups: theory and practice. In: Nutt PC, Wilson DC (eds) Handbook of decision making. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 231–272
Eden C, Jones S, Sims D, Smithin T (1981) The intersubjectivity of issues and issues of intersubjectivity. J Manag Stud 18(1):37–47
Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki
Engeström Y (2000) Activity theory as a framework for analysing and redesigning work. Ergonomics 43(7):960–974
Espejo R, Harden R (1989) The viable systems model: interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Wiley, Chichester
Fox R (2001) Constructivism examined. Oxford Rev Educ 27(1):23–35
Franco LA (2013) Rethinking Soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur J Oper Res 231(3):720–733
Franco LA, Greiffenhagen C (2018) Making OR practice visible: using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops. Eur J Oper Res 265(2):673–684
Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205(3):489–500
Franco LA, Nielsen MF (2018) Examining group facilitation in situ: the use of formulations in facilitation practice. Group Decis Negot 27(5):735–756
Franco LA, Rouwette EA (2011) Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops. Eur J Oper Res 212(1):164–178
Franco LA, Rouwette EA, Korzilius H (2016) Different paths to consensus? the impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):878–889
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Garfinkel H (1986) Introduction. In: Garfinkel H (ed) Ethnomethodological studies of work. Routledge, London, pp vii–viii
Garfinkel H, Wieder L (1992) Text in context: contributions to ethnomethodology. Sage, Newbury Park
Goodwin C (1993) Recording human interaction in natural settings. Pragmatics 3(2):181–209
Greimas AJ (1990) The social sciences: a semiotic view (P. Perron, and F. Collins, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Heath C, Luff P (1992) Collaboration and control: crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Comput Support Cooperat Work 1(1–2):69–94
Heath C, Hindmarsh J, Luff P (2010) Video in qualitative analysis: analysing social interaction in everyday life. Sage, London
Henderson K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Sci, Technol Human Values 16(4):448–473
Herrera HJ, McCardle-Keurentjes MHF, Videira N (2016) Evaluating Facilitated Modelling processes and outcomes: an experiment comparing a single and a multimethod approach in Group Model Building. Group Decis Negot 25(6):1277–1318
Hickling A (1990) Decision Spaces: A scenario about designing appropriate rooms for group decision management. In C. Eden, and J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: the role of group decision support: 169–177. London: Sage
Hindmarsh J, Heath C (2000) Sharing the tools of the trade: the interactional constitutions of workplace objects. J Contenp Ethnogr 29(5):523–562
Hindmarsh J, Heath C, Fraser M (2006) (Im)materiality, virtual reality and interaction: grounding the ‘virtual’ in studies of technology in action. Sociol Rev 54(4):795–817
Jefferson G (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH (ed) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. John Benjamin, Amsterdam, pp 13–31
Kelly G (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. A theory of personality. New York: Norton.
Keys P (2006) On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc 57:822–829
Kolfschoten GL, de Vreede G-J, Pietron LR (2011) A training approach for the transition of repeatable collaboration processes to practitioners. Group Decis Negot 20(3):347–371
Kolfschoten GL, Kosterbok J, Hoekstra A (2015) A transferable thinkLet based process design for integrity risk assessment in government organizations. Group Decis Negot 24(4):595–611
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C (2000) Workplace studies: recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lynch M (1993) Scientific practice and ordinary action: ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Melzer P, Schoop M (2016) The effects of personalised negotiation training on learning and performance in electronic negotiations. Group Decis Negot 25(6):1189–1210
Miettinen R (2005) Object as activity and individual motivation. Mind, Cult Activit 12(1):53–68
Morton A, Ackermann F, Belton V (2003) Technology-driven and model-driven approaches to group decision support: focus, research philosophy, and key concepts. Eur J Inf Syst 12(2):110–126
Ormerod RJ (2008) The transformation competence perspective. J Oper Res Soc 59(11):1435–1448
Ormerod RJ (2014) The mangle of OR practice: towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects. J Oper Res Soc 65(8):1245–1260
Phillips L (2007) Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles R Jr, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 375–399
Phillips LD, Phillips MC (1993) Facilitated work groups: theory and practice. J Oper Res Soc 44(6):533–549
Poole MS, Holmes M, DeSanctis G (1991) Conflict management in a computer-supported meeting environment. Manag Sci 37:926–953
Porcheron M, Fischer JE, Reeves S, Sharples S (2018) Voice interfaces in everyday life. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems
Potter J (2002) Two kinds of natural. Discour Stud 4(4):539–542
Rouncefield M, Tolmie P (2016) Ethnomethodology at work. Routledge, London
Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Van Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness. A review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18(1):5–45
Sacks H (1992) In: Jefferson G (ed) Lectures on conversation. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696–735
Samra-Fredericks D (2010) The interactional accomplishment of a strategic plan. In: Llewellyn N, Hindmarsh J (eds) Organization, interaction and practice: studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 198–217
Schegloff EA (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings 1. Am Anthropol 70(6):1075–1095
Schmidt K (1999) Of maps and scripts: the status of formal constructs in cooperative work. J Inf Softw Technol 41(6):319–329
Škraba A, Kljajić M, Borštnar MK (2007) The role of information feedback in the management group decision-making process applying System Dynamics models. Group Decis Negot 16(1):77–95
Star SL, Griesemer RJ (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrae Zoology. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420
Stokoe E (2013) The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: comparing role-played and actual conversation and the implications for communication training. Res Lang Soc Interact 46(2):1–21
Stokoe E (2014) The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): a method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Res Lang Soc Interact 47(3):255–265
Tavella E, Franco LA (2015) Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: An exploratory study. Group Decis Negot 24(3):451–475
Tavella E, Papadopoulos T (2015a) Expert and novice facilitated modelling: a case of a Viable System Model workshop in a local food network. J Oper Res Soc 66(2):247–264
Tavella E, Papadopoulos T (2015b) Novice facilitators and the use of scripts for managing facilitated modelling workshops. J Oper Res Soc 66(12):1967–1988
Thompson JP, Howick S, Belton V (2016) Critical learning incidents in system dynamics modelling engagements. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):945–958
Velez-Castiblanco J, Brocklesby J, Midgley G (2016) Boundary games: how teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):968–982
Velez-Castiblanco J, Londono-Correa D, Naranjo-Rivera O (2018) The structure of problem structuring conversations: a boundary games approach. Group Decis Negot 27(5):853–884
Watson R (2009) Analysing practical and professional texts: a naturalistic approach. Ashgate, London
White L (2009) Understanding problem structuring methods interventions. Eur J Oper Res 99(3):823–833
White L, Burger K, Yearworth M (2016) Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):983–1004
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Transcription Symbols
Appendix: Transcription Symbols
For the analysis presented in this chapter, we followed the conversation analytic transcript conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (2004). The most important are the following:
-
Double parentheses [“(( ))”] are used to mark transcriber’s descriptions of events.
-
Single parentheses [“( )”] indicate uncertainty on the transcriber’s part.
-
Underlined items [“item”] are hearably stressed.
-
Colons [“a::]” indicate prolongation of the immediately prior sound.
-
The degree sign [“°”] is used as a softener.
-
A dash [“-”] indicates a cut-off.
-
An inbreath is denoted by a preceding circle [“°h”].
-
Numbers in parentheses [e.g., “(0.3)”] denote a silence in tenth of seconds, while “(.)” denotes a micropause of less than 0.2 seconds.
-
The onset of overlap is indicated either through square brackets between lines [“[“], or in case of “latching” through an equal sign [“=”].
-
An arrow is used to indicate particular lines of interest.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Franco, L.A., Greiffenhagen, C. (2020). Group Decision Support Practice ‘as It Happens’. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_54-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_54-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences