This article draws on activity theory, politics of the artifact, and speech act theory to analyze how language practices and technology interplay in establishing the social relationships necessary for globally networked teams. Specifically, it uses activity theory to examine how linguistic infelicities and the politics of communication technologies interplay in virtual meetings, thereby demonstrating the importance of grounding professional communication instruction in social as well as technical effectiveness. That is, students must learn not only how to communicate technical concepts clearly and concisely and recognize cultural differences but also how to use language and choose media in ways that produce the social conditions necessary for effective collaboration in globally networked environments. The article analyzes two case studies—a workplace and a classroom—that illustrate how the mediating functions of language and the politics of technology intersect as mediating tools in globally networked activity systems. It then traces the implications of that intersection for professional communication theory and pedagogy.
Anawati, D., & Craig, A. ( 2006). Behavioral adaptation within cross-cultural virtual teams . IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49, 44-56.
2.
Anson, C.M. ( 2006). Assessing writing in cross-curricular programs: Determining the locus of activity. Assessing Writing, 11, 100-112.
3.
Artemeva, N. ( 2007). Becoming an engineering communicator: Novices learning engineering genres. Paper presented at the 4th International Symposium on Genre Studies, Tubarão , Brazil.
4.
Artemeva, N. ( 2008). Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 160-185.
5.
Austin, J.L. ( 1975). How to do things with words (2nd Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Banks, S., Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. ( 2003). Introduction to the special issue on advances in research on networked learning. Instructional Science, 31, 1-6.
7.
Baskerville, R., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Activating and perpetuating virtual teams: Now that we’re mobile, where do we go?IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 17-34.
8.
Bazerman, C. ( 1997). Discursively structured activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 296-308.
9.
Coppola, N.W., Hiltz, S.R., & Rotter, N.G. ( 2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47, 95-104.
10.
Crowston, K., Howison, J., Masango, C., & Eseryel, U.Y. ( 2007). The role of face-to-face meetings in technology-supported self-organizing distributed teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 185-203.
11.
Dannels, D.P. ( 2003). Teaching and learning design presentations in engineering: Contradictions between academic and workplace activity systems. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17, 139-169.
12.
Desanctis, G., & Monge, P. ( 1999). Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10, 693-703.
13.
Dias, P. ( 2000). Writing classrooms as activity systems. In P. Dias & A. Pare (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 11-29). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
14.
Engeström, Y. ( 1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
15.
Farrell, L., & Holkner, B. ( 2004). Points of vulnerability and presence: Knowing and learning in globally networked communities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25, 133-144.
16.
Ferreday, D., Hodgson, V., & Jones, C. ( 2006). Dialogue, language and identity: Critical issues for networked management learning. Studies in Continuing Education , 28, 223-239.
17.
Fish, S. ( 1976). How to do things with Austin and Searle: Speech act theory and literary criticism. Modern Language Notes, 91, 983-1025.
18.
Greenberg, P.S., Greenberg, R.H., & Antonucci, Y.L. (2007). Creating and sustaining trust in virtual teams. Business Horizons, 50, 325-333.
19.
Hung, D.W.L., & Wong, A.F.L. ( 2000). Activity theory as a framework for project work in learning environments. Educational Technology, 40, 33-37.
20.
Hung, Y.T.C., Nguyen, D., Wei-Chang, K., & Ai-Ling, C. (2008). Reexamining media capacity theories using workplace instant messaging. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51, 352-368.
21.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Leidner, D.E. ( 1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3, 791-815.
22.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Shaw, T.R., & Staples, D.S. ( 2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research , 15, 250-256.
23.
Jonassen, D.H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61-79.
24.
Kain, D., & Wardle, E. ( 2005). Building context: Using activity theory to teach about genre in multi-major professional communication courses. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14, 113-139.
25.
Kock, N. ( 2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication , 48, 117-130.
26.
Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). Conceptualizing the awareness of collaboration: A qualitative study of a global virtual team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14, 301-322.
27.
McNair, L.D., Paretti, M.C., & Davitt, M. ( 2010). Towards a pedagogy of relational space and trust: Analyzing distributed collaboration using discourse and speech act analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53, in press.
28.
McNair, L.D., Paretti, M.C., & Kakar, A. ( 2008). Case study of prior knowledge: Expectations and identity constructions in interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, virtual collaboration . International Journal of Engineering Education, 24, 386-399.
29.
Nardi, B.A. ( 1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
Nardi, B.A., & Whittaker, S. ( 2002). The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 83-110). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Olson, J.S., Teasley, S., Covi, L., & Olson, G. ( 2002). The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work . In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 113-135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
Paretti, M.C., & McNair, L.D. (2008). Communication in global virtual activity systems. In P. Zemliansky & K. St.Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on virtual workplaces and the new nature of business practices (pp. 24-38). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
34.
Paretti, M.C., McNair, L.D., & Holloway-Attaway, L. (2007). Teaching technical communication in an era of distributed work: A case study of collaboration between U.S. and Swedish students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, 327-352.
35.
Robert, L.P., & Dennis, A.R. ( 2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice . IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48, 10-21.
36.
Russell, D.R. ( 1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
37.
Schryer, C.F., Lingard, L., & Spafford, M. ( 2007). Regularized practices: Genres, improvisation, and identity formation in health-care professions. In M. Zachry & C. Thralls (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions (pp. 21-44). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
38.
Searle, J. ( 2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. ( 1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley.
40.
Spinuzzi, C. ( 1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5, 295-308.
41.
Spinuzzi, C. ( 2007). Who killed Rex? Tracing a message through three kinds of networks. In M. Zachry & C. Thralls (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions (pp. 45-66). Amityville, NY : Baywood.
42.
Swarts, J. ( 2004). Textual grounding: How people turn texts into tools. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34, 67-89.
43.
Timmerman, C.E., & Madhavapeddi, S.N. (2008). Perceptions of organizational media richness: Channel expansion effects for electronic and traditional media across richness dimensions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51, 18-32.
44.
Usoro, A., Sharratt, M.W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S. ( 2007). Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5, 199-212.
45.
Walther, J.B. ( 1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction . Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
46.
Walther, J.B., & Bunz, U. ( 2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication , 55, 828-846.
47.
Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G., & McEvily, V. ( 2007). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 16-33.
48.
Winner, L. ( 1999). Do artifacts have politics? In D. A. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (pp. 1-12). London: Open University Press.
49.
Winsor, D.A. ( 2006). Using writing to structure agency: An examination of engineers’ practice. Technical Communication Quarterly , 15, 411-430.
50.
Winsor, D. ( 2007). Using texts to manage continuity and change in an activity system. In M. Zachry & C. Thralls (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions (pp. 3-20). Amityville, NY : Baywood.
