relationships in virtual teams (Di Luca Bacchetta)
The Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). There is often a skeptical attitude, especially among operators "psycho-social when it comes to relationships in virtual teams. Who saying that" as a virtual "one can not speak to groups, who argued that, for same reasoning, one can not speak of "relationships." Hopefully, in this way, to avoid the discomfort of confronting one of the frontiers of the human, the border area between man and machine.
In my opinion, to argue, as some do, that you do not have to do with groups "because we do not see" or "because they lack the bodies" is the result of at least two erroneous assumptions that, first, by lowering the group concept to the "group face to face and the other involving the removal of a significant part of the studies of social psychology of the '50s (think the experiments on the structure of communication Leavitt just using a machine that does not allow direct communication between participants) (Brown, 1990, pp.105-106)
retrace If, \u200b\u200bhowever, the most common definitions of the term "group" (Brown, 1990, pp.) you can not deny that " virtual teams "are such that, when they present certain minimum characteristics: participants are recognized as members of the same group and this feature is recognized by a third party" outside ".
Studies on the characteristics of "virtual teams" and the communications and relationships that occur in them, have become increasingly numerous since the mid-80s when the distance communication, both in educational production becomes increasingly important.
Mantovani (1995) shows the view of Sproull and Kiesler who have argued about the poverty of information about the situations in this interpersonal relationships in CMC and criticizes the view "that identifies the social context of interpersonal relationships with the whole" Dealing with subsequent processing, particularly Spearls and Lea to argue that the social relations but not in symbolization processes (self, other, situation, etc.).. Explicit references in this reading relies are social identity theory of Tajfel and that the categorization of the self Turner.
The two lines above (represented on one side by Sproul and Kiesler, and the other by Spearls Lea) are the main poles in the debate on the characteristics of CMC, in fact reproduce the historical difference in the reading group phenomena between the readings interactionist and the "group" derived from Lewin.
Since then multiply the analysis and research on the characteristics of "virtual teams" analysis which took into account the structure of communication, the influence of roles and status, decision-making. Were investigated, in particular, aspects such as strategies of approach, the multiple identities, the change of gender, romantic relationships, anonymity, leadership, participation, gender difference, the deindividualizzazione, etc.. The main authors of reference are still those who are employed in the 50-70 years group and community.
The methodologies used to refer mainly sociological and anthropological approaches, with a prevalence of 'observation' more or less participant.
E 'remained in the background, probably for the lowest interest (or more difficult), research on the development of affective processes in virtual groups.
