This paper explores the implication of the use and appropriation of collaborative technologies in digital disaster response. Using a virtual ethnographic approach, we studied the work of Humanity Road through participant observation of seventeen response operations across thirteen countries for seventeen months. The results identify critical areas where collaborative technologies have been successfully deployed for organising disaster responses. Our analysis offers insights into the areas where these technologies have facilitated or hindered the capacity of cooperative work during response operations. We conclude by suggesting implications for design and practice.
AbdulhamidNG.PerryMKashefiA (2018) Process workflow in crowdsourced digital disaster responses. StaabS.KoltsovaO.IgnatovDI (eds) Social Informatics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01129-1_1.
2.
BowersJ.ButtonGSharrockW (1995) Workflow from within and without: technology and cooperative work on the print industry shopfloor. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW 95. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 51–66. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-0349-7_4.
3.
BraunV, et al. (2014) Qualitative research in clinical and health psychology. London, UK: Macmillan International Higher Education.
4.
CobbC, et al. (2014) Designing for the deluge: understanding and supporting the distributed, collaborative work of crisis volunteers, Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), pp. 888–899. doi: 10.1145/2531602.2531712.
5.
St. DenisLAHughesALPalenL (2012) Trial by Fire: The deployment of trusted digital volunteers in the 2011 Shadow Lake Fire, 9th International ISCRAM Conference, (April), pp. 1–10.
6.
DourishP (2003) The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12, pp. 465–490.
7.
GoldRL (1958) Roles in sociological field observations, Social forces. JSTOR, 36(3), pp. 217–223. doi: 10.2307/2573808.
8.
GrudinJPalenL (1995) Why groupware succeeds: Discretion or mandate?. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW95, pp. 263–278.
9.
GuptaA, et al. (2014) TweetCred: Real-time credibility assessment of content on Twitter, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 8851. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-13734-6_16.
10.
HarrisonSDourishP (1996) Re-Place-ing space: the roles of space and place in collaborative environments. In Proc. ACM Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW.
11.
HeverinTZachL (2010) Microblogging for crisis communication: examination of twitter use in response to a 2009 violent crisis in the Seattle-Tacoma, Washington Area, Proceedings of the 7th International ISCRAM Conference. ISCRAM, 2009(November), 5.
HughesALPalenL (2009) Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events, International Journal of Emergency Management. Inderscience Publishers, 6(3–4), pp. 248–260.
KaptelininV (1996) Creating computer-based work environments: an empirical study of Macintosh users. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research, pp. 360–366.
17.
KrepsGA (1984) Sociological inquiry and disaster research, Annual Review of Sociology, 10(1), pp. 309–330.
18.
LiuSB, et al. (2008) In search of the bigger picture: the emergent role of on-line photo sharing in times of disaster, Proceedings of the 5th International ISCRAM Conference, 8(May), pp. 140–149. doi: -.
19.
LudwigT, et al. (2015) CrowdMonitor: Mobile crowd sensing for assessing physical and digital activities of citizens during emergencies. In Proceedings of the 33 rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4083–4092. doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702265.
20.
LudwigT.SiebigterothTPipekV (2014) CrowdMonitor: monitoring physical and digital activities of citizens during emergencies. In Social Informatics, pp. 421–428.
21.
MarkGJ.al-AniBSemaanB (2009) Resilience through technology adoption. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI 09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 689. doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518808.
22.
MarkGSemaanB (2008) Resilience in collaboration: technology as a resource for new patterns of action. In Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW 08. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 137. doi: 10.1145/1460563.1460585.
23.
NhanJ.HueyLBrollR (2017) Digilantism: an analysis of crowdsourcing and the Boston marathon bombings, The British Journal of Criminology. Oxford University Press, 57(2), pp. 341–361. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azv118.
24.
OrlikowskiWJ (1995) Learning from notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation, Readings in Human–Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 197–204. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-051574-8.50023-6.
25.
PalenL.HiltzSRLiuSB (2007) Citizen communications in crisis: anticipating a future of ICT-supported public participation. In CHI 07 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. San Jose, CA, USA: ACM New York, NY, USA, p. 10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240736.
26.
PetersRde AlbuquerqueJP (2015) Investigating images as indicators for relevant social media messages in disaster management, Proceedings of the ISCRAM 2015 Conference - Kristiansand, May 24-27, (2013).
27.
ReuterC, et al. (2015) XHELP: Design of a cross-platform social-media application to support volunteer moderators in disasters. In Proceedings of the 33 rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 15). ACM. New York, NY, USA, pp. 4093–4102. doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702171.
28.
ReuterC.HughesALKaufholdM.-A (2018) Social media in crisis management: an evaluation and analysis of crisis informatics research, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. Taylor and Francis, pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1427832.
29.
ReuterCMentlerT (2018) Human-computer interaction and social media in safety-critical systems-Editorial, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), pp. 2–3. doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.12192.
30.
ShklovskiI.PalenLSuttonJ (2008) Finding community through information and communication technology in disaster response. In Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW 08. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 127. doi: 10.1145/1460563.1460584.
31.
SmithMA.FarnhamSDDruckerSM (2000) The social life of small graphical chat spaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM (CHI 00), pp. 462–469. doi: 10.1145/332040.332477.
32.
StarbirdK (2011) Digital volunteerism during disaster: crowdsourcing information processing. In Conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 7–12.
33.
StarbirdKPalenL (2010) Pass it on?: Retweeting in mass emergency. International Community on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management.
34.
StarbirdKPalenL (2011) “Voluntweeters”: self-organizing by digital volunteers in times of crisis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systemsCHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada., pp. 1071–1080.
35.
StarbirdKPalenL (2013) Working and sustaining the virtual “Disaster Desk”. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW 13. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 491–502. doi: 10.1145/2441776.2441832.
36.
TapiaAH.LaLoneNJKimH-W (2014) Run amok: group crowd participation in identifying the bomb and bomber from the Boston marathon bombing. In ISCRAM, pp. 265–274. doi: 10.4018/IJISCRAM.2014100105.
37.
ViewegS, et al. (2008) Collective Intelligence in Disaster: Examination of the Phenomenon in the Aftermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
38.
ViewegS, et al. (2010) Microblogging during two natural hazards events: what twitter may contribute to situational awareness. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 1079–1088. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753486.
