Does the Use of E-Mail Change Over Time? - Semantic Scholar

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION, 15(3), 419–431 Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Does the Use of E-Mail Change Over Time? A. Lantz Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science Royal Institute of Technology

Many empirical studies of the use of e-mail have been performed, but longitudinal studies are not common. In this article a longitudinal study is presented, with data collected during 1994, 1995, and 1998. The research question was as follows: How does the use of e-mail change over time concerning problems experienced with e-mail, the flow of messages, and time to handle mail (i.e., to send and receive a response)? Results show that the flow of messages was stable (sent mail per day) or doubled (received messages per day). Time to handle mail was stable over the 5 years, but the experienced amount of time to handle mail changed from not being sufficient to sometimes sufficient depending on the total work situation. Experienced problems with e-mail decreased during the 5-year study period. The time for respondents to reply to a message changed during this period from immediately to in a day or even a week. Respondents accepted not receiving replies to their own messages, but they used strategies to get answers to the most important messages.

1. INTRODUCTION Since the mid-1980s, many empirical studies on the use of e-mail have been reported. But what do we know about changes in the use of e-mail over time? Do people experience problems with e-mail, or does the amount of information received or sent change over time? In this article a theoretical framework is presented that focused on aspects of cognition and communication as they apply to the use of e-mail. This is followed by a description of a longitudinal study of the use of e-mail including six e-mail users that was performed in 1994, 1995, and 1998.

1.1. Cognitive Aspects of the Use of E-Mail In previous research about the use of e-mail, aspects such as flow of information, need of help, type of functionality, and commands used have been the focus, as The author thanks the respondents participating in the three studies, anonymous reviewers, and Professor Kerstin Severinson Eklundh for helpful comments on this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to A. Lantz, Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology, S 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]

420

Lantz

well as task allocation (see, e.g., Hjalmarsson, Oestreicher, & Waern, 1989; Waern, Malmsten, Oestreicher, Hjalmarsson, & Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, 1991). When graphic interfaces were introduced, questions regarding where to place information, the number of folders required, the order of information presentation, how to select and sort incoming information, and filtering of information arose (see, e.g., Bälter 1998; Barreau & Nardi, 1995; Lantz, 1998; Mackay, 1988; Mackay et al., 1989; Malone, Grant, Turbak, Brobst, & Cohen, 1987). Mackay et al. regarded the selection and storage of messages as filtering strategies of different kinds. Their study concerned the use of rules to help users of e-mail systems select messages for reading or for automatic storage. Their study describes cognitive, social, and economic category filters of both received and stored mail. Bälter (1998) reported that users who experience having problems with e-mail tend to have more mail stored in the inbox than users who do not experience such problems. Jones, Bock, and Brassard (1990) described that users felt overwhelmed by the amount of mail received and that they were uncertain as to the structure of mail folders. Whittaker and Sidner (1996) and Lantz reported similar results. Lantz discussed time for handling e-mail. Handling e-mail was reported as not included explicitly in respondents’ work time. Respondents had problems organizing their mail folders, even though they did not experience the perception of being overwhelmed by incoming mail, and this could be explained by the fact that the organization of folders is a problem in itself.

1.2. Communicative Aspects of the Use of E-Mail Communication among people via e-mail is another focus of studies on the use of e-mail. In a field study described by Sproull and Kiesler (1992), teams that used e-mail did not communicate more (in total) than other groups did. The e-mail group spent less time in meetings and on the telephone. These authors concluded that electronic communication need not increase the total time groups need to complete a project or to do it well. The physical distance between communicators, message content, and urgency of the message are three factors suggested by Caldwell, Uang, and Taha (1995) to be involved in the communication process. Severinson Eklundh and Macdonald (1994) reported a survey on e-mail communication strategies. The results showed that 51% of participating users reported that, whenever possible, they read mail as it arrived. It has also been suggested that people feel obliged to answer a message as soon as they receive it (Bannon, 1986). In an interview study described by Lantz (1998), respondents reported that e-mail interrupts other work activities but that receiving e-mail was experienced as positive and fun. According to Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire (1991), the availability of instantaneous electronic communication might lead people to expect immediate responses. Another aspect of e-mail communication is “silence.” According to Severinson Eklundh (1994), a perception of silence in e-mail conversation is due to the lack of immediate feedback. This is the feature that most distinguishes e-mail from spoken media with respect to the conditions for dialogue. When a

E-Mail Use Over Time

421

conversation ends in silence it may, according to Severinson Eklundh (1994), be taken by the user as a sign of a problem or a breakdown in the dialogue. There is a general uncertainty about when to expect or give feedback in e-mail, and this may disturb the communicative process. These problems are especially relevant in situations when one of the participants is a heavy user of e-mail. In such a situation, the case of no response might simply be explained by the fact that the heavy user may not yet have had time to answer or has simply forgotten the message. Another explanation may be that the user has deliberately postponed a reply to await more information on the subject matter, a strategy common among heavy users to economize on the number of messages.

1.3. Longitudinal Studies of the Use of E-Mail To improve e-mail systems and suggest solutions to problems with using e-mail, insights into how users handle e-mail changes over time would be valuable. This was one of the conclusions drawn by Lantz (1998). Cognitive and communicative aspects of handling e-mail can be regarded as a process and therefore should be studied at several occasions, not just at one point. According to Poole and DeSanctis (1990), research has not included technology in a context but has ignored situations in which it is used. They argued that technology use is a social process involving the construction and recreation of context and social world. Their theory is designed to capture interactions among technology, context, group processes, and social structure. Longitudinal research of e-mail is not common, but some studies have been performed. Bälter (1998) reported a study on how managers develop from novices to experienced e-mail users when it comes to organization of e-mail messages. Data were collected during 4 years; the results show that user behavior regarding strategies for organizing e-mail evolves with time, and an elementary model of the different stages was proposed. Bälter (1998) explained that a new e-mail user probably will start without mail folders. Over time the number of received and stored messages increases, and the user might decide to start using folders. When overloaded with messages, the user may give up filing and become a nonfiler. Bälter (2000) elaborated the model further and described some of the context-independent properties of e-mail message storage and retrieval. Factors included in the model were number of incoming messages to store, number of folders, the total number of messages, and the number of searched messages each day. According to the model, the best long-term strategy is to use folders sparsely in combination with search functions. Another longitudinal study was presented by Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler, and Scherlis (1998). This study focused on Internet in homes, and the results show that respondents preferred using e-mail to the Web and that they accessed e-mail before they accessed the Web. Results were presented from an examination of the number of personal messages and number of Web sites visited each week. Both e-mail and Web use were stable over time, but the stability was substantially greater for e-mail than for the Web. Kraut et al. (1998) explained that

422

Lantz

this means that one can predict a participant’s current e-mail use from his or her use in the prior week much better than one can predict a participant’s current Web use from his or her prior Web use.

2. THE LONGITUDINAL STUDY The main issue in this longitudinal study was to examine how the use of e-mail changes over time. Throughout three data collections (described subsequently), conducted over a 5-year period, a number of different questions concerning use of e-mail were posed. This report focuses particularly on the following questions:

• • • •

Does the number of received and sent messages change over time? Does the time to handle e-mail change over time? Do the experienced problems with e-mail change over time? Does the way of responding to e-mail change over time?

2.1. Respondents All respondents worked at a large, high-technology company. The work within the organization was mostly organized as projects, and the workload on employees fluctuated according to where in the project process the work was being done. All respondents had access to an e-mail system. Six respondents participated during all three data collections described subsequently. The six respondents and their reported work category are presented in Table 1. A manager can work with planning and coordinating the work but also with staff training, activity investigation, and alterations. The work task for constructors is mainly to develop software and hardware. A librarian constructs and develops icons and keeps a library of icons to be used in different applications. There were some changes in profession and work tasks during the 5-year period of the study reported. One respondent changed profession from constructor to manager (Respondent 8), one changed from a middle-level manager to a lower level manager (Respondent 9), one maintained the same profession and work tasks, and the remaining three took on more responsibility within their work but maintained the same work category. Table 1: Six Respondents and Their Work Category Respondent No. 2 3 6 7 8 9

Work Category Manager Constructor Manager Librarian Manager Manager


423

The level of experience in using e-mail, in 1994, varied among the respondents from 3 to 10 years (M = 5.5). All respondents during the first and second measurement used the e-mail system Mailtool. In 1998, two of the respondent had the same e-mail system (Respondents 3 and 7). The managers (Respondents 2, 6, and 9) had changed to Netscape mail (one of the managers used Memo for Windows, 8).

2.2. Data Collection Data were collected at three different occasions in 1994, 1995, and 1998. For an overview, see Table 2. In the results reported subsequently, data from the six respondents participating in the three studies were included. Two questionnaires and one interview were performed, the latter in combination with a demonstration of the e-mail system used.

2.3. Questionnaire 1 A questionnaire was distributed electronically to eight work groups within a high-technology company; the questionnaire included 24 questions and was estimated to take about 30 min to complete. The questionnaire aimed at identifying heavy users of e-mail and problems experienced with handling e-mail. The part of Questionnaire 1 discussed in this report focuses on questions regarding job category, work tasks, e-mail system used, number of received and sent mail, and experienced problems with handling mail.

2.4. Interview and Demonstration A semistructured interview and a complementing demonstration of the e-mail system used were performed at a worksite. Ten respondents (male) were chosen from the Questionnaire 1 study. The strata were based on variations in the variables of job category, number of e-mail messages sent and received, and experienced problems with handling e-mail. Each interview took about 1 hr. The aim was to investigate if the strategy to access the e-mail system continually disturbed other work activity, norms and rules for how quickly to answer a message were used, and the amount of time involved in handling e-mail was experienced as sufficient. Table 2: Form of Data Collection, Year of Collection, and Number of Respondents Participating Questionnaire 1 Distributed via E–Mail 1994 n = 58

Interview and Demonstration at the Work Site 1995

Questionnaire 2 Distributed via E–Mail 1998

n = 10

n=6

424

Lantz

At the end of the interview, respondents were instructed to give a short demonstration of the e-mail system, its inbox, and the structure of mail folders. During the demonstration, respondents were asked to think aloud. The interview and demonstration were tape-recorded. The part of the interview discussed in this report focuses on questions concerning job category, work tasks, e-mail system used, number of received and sent mail messages, problems with handling mail plus questions about the time to handle e-mail, and responses given and received on e-mail messages. For a complete discussion of Questionnaire 1 and the interview study, see Lantz (1998).

2.5. Questionnaire 2 The purpose of Questionnaire 2, which was distributed in 1998, was to collect follow-up data from the 10 persons participating in the two earlier studies. Questions on several topics were posed in this questionnaire, but the discussion here focuses on questions regarding job category, work tasks, e-mail system used, number of received and sent mail messages, experienced problems with handling mail (as in Questionnaire 1, as well as the interview and demonstration), questions about time to handle e-mail, and responses given and received on e-mail messages (as in the interview study presented previously).

2.6. Results The structure of the following section follows the order of the research questions presented previously. The results are based on responses given by the six respondents participating in Questionnaire 1, the interview and demonstration study, and Questionnaire 2. For each section, the results are presented in combination with citations from the respondents, and each section ends with a conclusion.

Does the number of received and sent messages and time to handle e-mail change over time? Table 3 shows that the general strategies for entering the e-mail system were to “continually read mail as it arrives” or to read it “several times per day.” Only one of the respondents changed strategy during the time between 1994 and 1998. The number of received and sent e-mails increased for all respondents over this period. Respondents were asked to estimate how much time, during a workday, they spent handling e-mail and if this time was enough. Time to handle mail varied between 30 min to several hours every day for the six respondents. In 1995, only Respondent 7 (who also had the lowest number of received e-mail messages) thought that the time to handle e-mail was sufficient. In 1998, the time to handle e-mail was believed to be sufficient on some occasions but not on others. Respon-

Table 3: Respondent’s Work Category, Strategy for Entering Mail System, Estimation of Number of Messages Received and Sent per Day, Estimation of Time to Handle E-Mail, and Experience of Time Being Sufficient Received Mail/Day Respondent 2 Manager 3 Constructor 6 Manager 7 Librarian 8 Manager

9 Manager

Sent Mail/Day

Strategy Used for Entering E-Mail

1994

1995

1998

1994

1995

1998

Continually reads E-Mail as it arrives Continually reads E-Mail as it arrives Continually reads E-Mail as it arrives Continually reads E-Mail as it arrives Continually reads E-Mail as it arrives (1995) Several times/day (1998) Several times/day

20 15 10 5 25

40 20 20 5 40

50 10 50 10 50

5 5 5 5 5

10 5 5 5 5

10 10 10 10 10

30

40

50

5

10

10

Time to Handle E-Mail, 1995

Time Sufficient 1995

1998

1 hr/day >30 min/day 1 hr/day 30 min/day 1 hr/day

No No No Yes No

Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Always

A couple of hr/day

No

Sometimes

425

426

Lantz

dent 8 was the only respondent reporting that the time was always sufficient. This is explained in the following way: In my present mission the tasks seldom are initiated via mail, since everybody in the project and colleagues are working at the same location. In my previous mission it was exactly the opposite. I then worked in a large international project where the communication mainly was via e-mail. (Respondent 8)

Summary. During the period of the study, the amount of sent e-mail doubled but still was at a low level (10 per day). Received e-mail increased and all managers nearly doubled the amount of e-mail received in 1998 (M = 36.7, SD = 20.7) compared with 1994 (M = 17.5, SD = 9.4). For the constructor and librarian, incoming e-mail was still at a low level (10 per day). The time spent handling e-mail was at least 30 min per day. Depending on other activities at work, the time was sometimes experienced as sufficient, but only one respondent thought it was always sufficient. Strategies for entering e-mail were found to be stable. Only one respondent changed strategy during the study period. The experienced time for handling e-mail changed from 1995 to 1998, most commonly from “not sufficient” to “sufficient at some occasions.” Do the experienced problems with e-mail change over time? Respondents 2 and 6 had both some or severe problems handling mail in 1994 and 1995. They changed their e-mail system but not their work situation. In 1995, Respondent 2 explained that a large amount of received e-mail was sent to him to forward to the right receiver in the organization. Respondent 6 received many messages, and this led to problems with sorting, saving, and finding messages again. Neither of these two respondents experienced problems with handling e-mail in 1998. Respondents 8 and 9 used a new e-mail tool in 1998 and had work situations that changed from constructor to manager (Respondent 8) in one case and to a position with less responsibility in another (Respondent 9). Problems experienced in 1994 and 1995 by Respondent 8 were as follows: …hard to find stored mail, I now store after time and not as before after subject, sender or topic. (Respondent 8) The same respondent explained the following in 1998: It’s better today than in 1995. Partly because people communicate less via e-mail, partly, because the e-mail system used today has a limit on how many messages that can be stored in the inbox. This forces you to clean up the inbox regularly. (Respondent 8) Respondent 9 reported severe problems with e-mail in 1994 and 1995. Problems finding time for reading and answering e-mail were reported. This respondent reported no severe problems with e-mail in 1998.


427

The messages have not decreased but I have tried to cut down on the number of meetings. This leads to more time to go through the mail too. (Respondent 9) Respondents number 3 and 7 did not report any problems with e-mail, changes in work category, or change of e-mail tool.

Summary. The problems with e-mail experienced in 1994 and 1995 decreased over time. Explanations could be the e-mail tool used (Respondents 2 and 6), new strategies for handling e-mail or for handling the whole communicative situation (Respondent 9), and new e-mail tools requiring new strategies for handling e-mail (Respondent 8). Respondents 3 and 7 used the least time handling e-mail of all the respondents (about 30 min per day), and they were the only nonmanagers in the group. Does the way of responding to e-mail change over time? The question “How do you select messages, of the incoming?” was posed in Questionnaire 1. The most frequent alternative used was that e-mail messages were read in the order they were presented. The question might seem irrelevant here in connection to responding to e-mail, but to decide which message to select for reading can be the first step toward replying. In the interviews some further comments on the topic were made: If an important message arrives, I often stop other activities. If I have time, I read the messages as they arrive. When I have to go through a number of messages, for example after a vacation, then I try first to find the ones that seem to be most urgent or important. Then, I might choose to read those that entertain or interest me the most, depending both on sender and content. Last, I read the long messages and the ones that are less important to me. (Respondent 8) I rather read in the order they are presented to get a continuity in the exchange of mail, but I occasionally ignore messages that are instead printed out and read at home. (Respondent 9) In the interview and Questionnaire 2, questions concerning strategies for replying to e-mail messages were included. Results from the question: “How fast do you reply to received messages?” showed that responses were generally given immediately or within a day, depending on the message content. It depends on how problematic they are, in the worst case it can take a week. Most often I try to answer within a day. (Respondent 9) During busy days, when I hardly have time to read mail, then there can be delays. When I work with tasks that are not too urgent I answer messages directly. It is a service to the person questioning. (Respondent 8)

428

Lantz

Before 1998, the respondents said that they answered e-mail directly or within a day. In 1998 no one said “directly,” but rather they reported “within a day” or even “within a week.” The preceding data report how the respondents reply to e-mail messages. Following is the result from the question, “How quickly do others reply to your messages?” In 1995, five of the respondents were quite satisfied with how others answered their e-mail. Relatively well. About 70% of my messages get answers. It is often messages with easy questions that get answers fast. It can take a couple of days. (Respondent 6) There are people that have enormous inboxes and they do not care much, but often if you say that you would like to get the information before the deadline, then you often get a reply. (Respondent 9) In 1998, four of the respondents reported that they received a response within a week. It varies between immediately, within 24 hours and within a week. (Respondent 9) For e-mail within the own organization, replies often don’t turn up. (Respondent 8) Reply is delayed, or don’t turn up…It varies a lot. I try to inform when I need an answer. (Respondent 2) The norm for how fast to reply on a message seems to have changed from directly or within a day to within a week. Receiving responses varies, and reminders and clarification are used when a deadline is coming up and a response is urgent.

The respondents’ explanation as to why others did not answer their e-mail. In 1995, the respondents’ explanations as to why others did not answer their e-mail were concerned with the fact that a person was stressed and had lack of time or did not like to use e-mail. The most common answer is that they have seen the message but not have had time to answer it. In some cases they haven’t even had the time to read the message. (Respondent 8) Some people are not that keen on using e-mail systems and to them it is easier to make a phone call. (Respondent 6)


429

In 1998, the explanations followed the same patterns as the ones given in 1995, but also technical aspects and lack of memory for storage were included. It can be due to some server that does not function or a bad interface. (Respondent 7) They do not have time, it is forgotten or it is gone. (Respondents 2 and 9) Both in 1995 and in 1998, the respondents reported that they tended to send a reminder in the form of a copy of the previous message or ask if their e-mail had arrived. Making a phone call also was mentioned as a strategy. One person indicated that if it was an internal e-mail, the contact was face to face.

Summary. How quickly a message is replied to depends on its content, that is, if it can be answered directly or if the matter needs to be further investigated. When to receive a reply on a sent message varies a lot, within a week or not at all. One of the respondents indicated that the response rate was relatively good, speculating that 70% of all messages asking for replies received them. Different strategies are used to receive answers to all messages. Reminders of different kinds and sometimes by alternative media (e.g., telephone or face-to-face contact) are used to receive a reply. When silence does occur, it is explained as a technological problem or that the receiver did not have time to answer the e-mail.

3. DISCUSSION People in some work categories (e.g., managers) have communicative activities as a primary part of their work. This was also shown in the longitudinal study reported in this article, where the managers had a higher number of received and sent e-mail messages, and at the same time they experienced having too little time to handle their e-mail. Time is an important factor, and changing work habits to rearrange work time was mentioned as a solution by one respondent to handling e-mail traffic. The time for handling e-mail is probably more influenced by the respondents’ work tasks. Because the intensity in work tasks varies, the time for handling e-mail does too. It might be expected that the communicative contacts, especially for managers, should increase over time, including the flow of e-mail. This could lead to increased problems with handling e-mail. This was not herein reported, with one of the respondents even reporting that communication with colleagues changed from e-mail to face-to-face meetings. The fact that some of the respondents changed e-mail tools during the 5-year study period also could explain why there were fewer problems with filing and finding stored messages over time. But this was just an indication in the data, not a clear explanation. Another explanation was that the respondents were more experienced e-mail users at the end of the study compared

430

Lantz

with 5 years earlier and that they might have learned how to cope with previous problems. The norm for replying to messages changed from directly or every day to every week. Messages were answered if the questions posed could be answered directly. If the respondent had to ask someone else or had to look for more information, the answer was delayed. To answer within a day was the most common answer in 1994 and 1995, and some saw it as a good service for the sender of the message that a quick answer was received. But, in 1998, the respondents said that replies were sent within a day or even within a week. The respondents accepted the delay in receiving answers to e-mail messages. The respondents had learned whom to contact via e-mail and whom to contact via other channels (e.g., telephone or even a personal visit at the office). To use reminders via e-mail sometimes worked out well, and then often a time limit, such as a deadline, was mentioned to be the strategy for receiving the answer. Respondents’ descriptions of how others answer their e-mail, why they do not get answers, and strategies for receiving answers were the same at all three data collections. However, the sender of a message might attribute silence to some particular cause (the message did not arrive, the receiver was not planning to answer the message or may be dissatisfied with its content) on the basis of expectations derived from the norms of spoken communication. In this report, data from only six respondents were presented. This is a low number of users to study, and thus the external validity of the findings may be low. A problem in conducting longitudinal studies is that some participants might change their position at a company and therefore can be hard to contact. To avoid this effect, it would be interesting to conduct another study where a small number of managers could be studied during a longer time period to grasp the whole communicative situation.

REFERENCES Bannon, L. J. (1986). Computer mediated-communication. In D. Norman & S. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design: New perspectives on human computer interaction (pp. 433–452). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Barreau, D., & Nardi, B. (1995). Finding and reminding: File organisation from the desktop. SIGCHI Bulletin, 27(3), 39–43. Bälter, O. (1998). Electronic mail in a working context. Stockholm: NADA, KTH. Bälter, O. (2000). Keystroke level analysis of email message organization. In T. Turner, G. Sewillius, M. Czerwinski, F. Paterno, & S. Pemberton (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI ’2000 (pp. 105–112). New York: ACM. Caldwell, B. S., Uang, S.-T., & Taha, L. H. (1995). Appropriateness of communications media use in organisations: Situation requirements and media characters. Behaviour and Information Technology, 14, 199–207. Hjalmarsson, A., Oestreicher, L., & Waern, Y. (1989). Human factors in electronic mail system design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 8, 461–474. Jones, S., Bock, G., & Brassard, A. (1990). Using electronic mail: Themes across three user interface paradigms. SIGCHI Bulletin, 21(3), 45–48.


431

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1991). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. In C. Dunlop & R. Kling (Eds.), Computerization and controversy (pp. 330–349). San Diego, CA: Academic. Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Kiesler, S., & Scherlis, W (1998). Communication and information: Alternative uses of the Internet in households. In C.–M. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz, J. Karat, & S. Pemberton (Eds.), Proceedings of the CHI ’98 (pp. 368–375). New York: ACM. Lantz, A. (1998). Heavy users of email. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 10, 361–379. Mackay, W. E. (1988). More than just a communication system: Diversity in the use of electronic mail. In I. Greif & L. Suchman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’88) (pp. 344–353). Portland, OR: ACM. Mackay, W. E., Malone, T. W., Crowston, K., Rao, R., Rosenblitt, D., & Card, S. K. (1989). How do experienced information lens users use rules? In K. Bice & C. Lewis (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 211–216). New York: ACM. Malone, T. W., Grant, K. R., Turbak, F. A., Brobst, S. A., & Cohen, M. D. (1987). Intelligent information-sharing systems. Communications of the ACM, 30, 390–402. Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173–193). Newbury Park, CA: Sages. Severinson Eklundh, K. (1994). Electronic mail as a medium for dialogue. In L. van Waest, E. Woudska, & P. van den Hoven (Eds.), Functional communication quality. Utrecht studies in language and communication (pp. 162–173). Amsterdam: Rodophi. Severinson Eklundh, K., & Macdonald, C. (1994). The use of quoting to preserve context in electronic mail dialogues. IEEE Transactions on Profession Communication, 37, 197–202. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1992). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Waern, Y., Malmsten, N., Oestreicher, L., Hjalmarsson, A., & Gidløf-Gunnarsson, A. (1991). Office automation and users’ need for support. Behaviour & Information Technology, 10, 501–514. Whittaker, S., & Sidner, C. (1996). Email overload: Exploring personal information management of email. In M. J. Tauber (Ed.), Proceedings of CHI ’96 (pp. 276–283). New York: ACM.