Distributed Work

Asynchronous-distributed (AD) collaborative writing (CW) is an important form of the growing trend of distributed work. However, AD CW typically results in multiple process losses. We argue that using advanced writing technologies designed for AD work alone is not sufficient by itself to overcome these losses. Instead, adopting high levels of process structure delivered in the form of explicitly written procedural scripts can improve the results of AD CW groups. We performed an experiment with over 500 subjects working in groups supported by advanced CW technologies that were designed for AD work. Subjects were given six weeks to conduct their work. We found that high levels of process structure in novice AD CW groups that worked on a moderately complex task created significantly better outcomes than did groups using low levels of process structure. Groups with high levels of process structure had better results in terms of production, document quality, satisfaction, relationships, and communication. In no case did low-structure groups outperform high-structure groups. This research supports our hypothesis that increased process structure delivered in the form of a repeatable process script can decrease process losses and increase process gains in novice AD CW groups. We conclude that it is not sufficient to give novice AD writing groups CW technology and time to conduct their tasks; these groups also need appropriate procedural support, which can be provided effectively through written scripts.

How do the dispossessed remain governable under economic insecurity? What explains the persistence of work as a prerequisite to social rights in a time when fewer formal jobs exist? Drawing on a comparison of Turkey and the United States since 1980, we demonstrate that the neo-liberal state deploys different versions of the " work-citizenship nexus " to manage both the shrinking minority who enjoy the benefits of full citizenship and the rest who struggle to attain the rights and privileges of the formally employed. We find that neo-liberal state practices comprise a dual movement. On the one hand, the state in both countries reorients itself toward the market in welfare provision and the regulation of labour relations, capitalising on precarious work structures to bring their populations into the fold of neo-liberal governance. On the other hand, the state directly intervenes in disparate ways to manage those who cannot make it in the market. While the American state uses tactics of mass incarceration and deportation, the Turkish state opts for a blend of social conservatism and authoritarianism. This dual movement of reorientation and direct intervention results in what we call " tiered citizenship regimes " that facilitate the management of the population in each case.