Advertisement

Methods to Study Everyday Activities in a Mobile Work Context – A Literature Overview

  • Eero Palomäki
  • Kai Hakkarainen
  • Matti Vartiainen
  • Mikko Heiskala
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8518)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of methods to study everyday activities in their contexts. We focused on contextual research methods used to study the daily life of workers, and a sub-group of mobile workers. The prevalence of the following methods was examined in literature: self-report recall surveys, time diaries, direct field observation, and experience sampling method (ESM). We identified only few articles where the methods were used to study working life. Adding the search term "mobile work" returned no hits. Based on this, we claim that there is a real need to apply the existing methods and to develop new methods to study mobile and multi-locational work in their contexts. The implication for future research is to point the need for filling the gaps between areas of daily research methods and studies of daily working life, and especially daily mobile work.

Keywords

mobile methods mobile data collection mobile and multilocational work daily life research everyday activity research bibliometric analysis ecological momentary assessment context-awareness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey, D.E., Kurland, N.B.: A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(4), 383–400 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wielen, J.V.D., Taillieu, T.C., Poolman, J.A., Zuilichem, J.V.: Telework: Dispersed organizational activity and new forms of spatial-temporal co-ordination and control. The European Work and Organizational Psychologist 3(2), 145–162 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kleinrock, L.: Nomadic Computing, Information Network and Data Communication. Presented at the IFIP/ICCC International Conference on Information Network and Data Communication, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 223–233 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heerwagen, J.H., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K.M., Loftness, V.: Collaborative knowledge work environments. Building Research & Information 32(6), 510–528 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M., Fruchter, R., Vartiainen, M., Ruohomaki, V.: A Framework to Analyze Knowledge Work in Distributed Teams. Group & Organization Management 36(3), 275–307 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halford, S.: Hybrid workspace: re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment 20(1), 19–33 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vartiainen, M., Hyrkkänen, U.: Changing requirements and mental workload factors in mobile multi-locational work. New Technology, Work and Employment 25(2), 117–135 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zheng, Y., Li, Q., Chen, Y., Xie, X., Ma, W.-Y.: Understanding mobility based on GPS data, pp. 312–321 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gemmell, J., Bell, G., Lueder, R., Drucker, S., Wong, C.: MyLifeBits: fulfilling the Memex vision, pp. 235–238 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Intille, S.S., Rondoni, J., Kukla, C., Ancona, I., Bao, L.: A context-aware experience sampling tool. In: Presented at the CHI 2003 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 972–973. ACM, Ft. Lauderdale (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N.: SECI, Ba and leadership; a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning 33(1), 5–34 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vartiainen, M., Hakonen, M., Kokko, N.: Emergence of mobile virtual work: concepts, outcomes and challenges. ZurPsychologie Der Tätigkeit, pp. 298–327. Huber, Bern (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vartiainen, M., Andriessen, J.E.: Virtual Team-Working and Collaboration Technology. In: Chmiel, N. (ed.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology—A European Perspective, pp. 209–233. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W.: Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12(4), 531–544 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwarz, N.: Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist 54(2), 1–13 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shiffman, S.: Real-time self-report of momentary states in the natural environment: Computerized ecological momentary assessment. In: Stone, A.A., Turkkan, J.S., Cachrach, C.A., Jobe, J.B., Kurtzman, H.S., Cain, V.S. (eds.) The Science of Self-report: Implications for Research and Practice, pp. 277–296. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilhelm, P., Perrez, M., Pawlik, K.: Conducting research in daily life: a historical review. In: Mehl, M.R., Conner, T.S. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life, pp. 62–86. The Guilford Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Szalai, A.: The Multinational Comparative Time Budget Research Project A Venture In International Research Cooperation. American Behavioral Scientist 10(4), 1–31 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N., Stone, A.A.: A Survey Method for Characterizing Daily Life Experience: The Day Reconstruction Method. Science 306(5702), 1776–1780 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robinson, M.D., Clore, G.I.: Belief and feelings: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin 128, 934–960 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tov, W., Scollon, C.N.: Cross-Cultural Research. In: Mehl, M.R., Conner, T.S. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life, pp. 539–552. The Guilford Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurtz, J.L., Lyubomirsky, S.: Positive Psychology. In: Mehl, M.R., Conner, T.S. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life, pp. 553–568. The Guilford Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McDonald, S.: Studying actions in context: a qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qualitative Research 5(4), 455–473 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Craik, K.H.: The lived day of an individual: A person-environment perspective. In: Walsh, W.B., Craik, K.H., Price, R.H. (eds.) Person-environment Psychology: New Directions and Perspectives, pp. 233–266. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Funder, D.C.: The personality puzzle. Norton, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fahrenberg, J., Myrtek, M., Pawlik, K., Perrez, M.: Ambulatory assessment- Monitoring behavior in daily life settings. A behavioral-scientific challenge for psychology. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 23, 206–213 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brunswik, E.: Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review 62, 193–217 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haynes, S.N., Yoshioka, D.T.: Clinical assessment application of ambulatory biosensors. Psychological Assessment 19, 44–57 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hodges, R.M.: Painless synovial effusinos. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 107, 534–536 (1882)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bakker, A.B.: An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(4), 265–269 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R., Prescott, S.: The ecology of adolescent activity and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 6(3), 281–294 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hektner, J., Schmidt, J., Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Conner, T.S., Tennen, H., Fleeson, W., Barrett, L.F.: Experience sampling methods: A modern idiographic approach to personality research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 3(3), 292–313 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wheeler, L., Reis, H.T.: Self-Recording of Everyday Life Events: Origins, Types, and Uses. Journal of Personality 59(3), 339–354 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Connor, T.C., Feldman Barrett, L., Bliss-Moreau, E., Lebo, K., Kaschub, C.: A practical guide to experience-sampling procedures. Journal of Happiness Studies 4, 53–78 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Feldman Barret, L., Barrett, D.J.: An introduction to computerized experience sampling in psychology. Social Science Computer Review 19, 175–185 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Intille, S.S.: Technological innovations enabling automatic, context-sensitive ecological momentary assessment. In: Stone, A.A., Shiffman, S., Atienza, A.A., Nebeling, L. (eds.) The Science of Real-time Data Capture: Self-reports in Health Research, pp. 308–337. Oxford University Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., Kosonen, K., Jalonen, S., Heikkilä, A., Lonka, K., Salmela-Aro, K., Linnanen, J., Salo, K.: Process-and context-sensitive research on academic knowledge practices: developing CASS-tools and methods. In: Chinn, C.A., Erkens, G., Puntambekar, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2007), pp. 545–547. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eero Palomäki
    • 1
  • Kai Hakkarainen
    • 2
  • Matti Vartiainen
    • 1
  • Mikko Heiskala
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Science, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Work Psychology and LeadershipAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.School of Science, Department of Computer Science and EngineeringAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations