Page - (000049) - in Knowledge and Networks

39 The Difference that Difference Makes Injecting problems of difference (along any of many axes) into the problematic arena of knowledge generation and sharing deepens already existing challenges. Thinking about difference entails more than adding Others to existing groups of workers; rather, it requires altering strategies that might otherwise be developed. For example, whereas there seems to be a consensus from e-collaboration and gen- eral management and organization studies that techniques for social bonding and building social awareness should be developed at the start of a project, whether in virtual or physical face-to-face settings (Han & Hovav, 2013 ; Kraut et al., 1999 ), difference might be served best differently. Research on heterogeneous groups rec- ognizes that although diversity is seen instrumentally as productive due to a multi- plicity of knowledges and perspectives (Shachaf, 2007 ), people nonetheless prefer to work and interact with those most similar to themselves, and moreover, are reluc- tant to share their knowledges with Others (Brown et al., 2012 ) in the context of prevailing preconceived views and derogatory stereotypes (Brown et al., 2012 ; Giambatista & Bhappu, 2010 ). Admittedly, economic performance can be served while social identities and relations are not, but, beyond ethics, economic productiv- ity at the expense of the social arguably is sub-optimal because constructive social relations are strategic for economic performance. Interestingly, research specifi cally on collaboration when difference is consid- ered suggests a trajectory of communication strategies in which the outset of a proj- ect might benefi t from a synchronous modes of communication or possibly avatars (Kock & Nosek, 2005 , p. 3), and subsequently move to face-to-face interaction, virtually or physically, followed by diverse modes of communication depending on project needs (Brown et al., 2012 ). Asynchronous modes of communication, which lack physical cues, conceal at least some elements of difference, 17 permitting more focus at the outset on the objective content of interaction (Brown et al., 2012 ; Giambatista & Bhappu, 2010 ; Shachaf, 2007 ), 18 and possibly facilitate a formula- tion of identities at least partially unencumbered from visual cues among diverse actors at the start of new project (Amiri, Gholipour, & Sohrabi, 2011 ). A trajectory of asynchronous and synchronous communication is best conceptualized as dialec- tical rather than unilinear to permit adaptation to unanticipated dynamics (Brown et al., 2012 ). The difference that difference makes in the strategic design of project communications would seem to occur notably at the outset, entailing a reversal of the conventional logic for the appropriate communication platform at this stage. But if the ultimate aim targets social relations in the course of project work, there remains more to consider. If a principal task is to develop social knowledges, beyond sharing economic knowledges in collaborative project work, then at least a portion 17 Emoticoms, grammar, and the like are not, however, hidden in asynchronous communication (Brown et al., 2012 ). 18 See also Harvey, Novicevic and Grarrison ( 2004 ) and Kock and Nosek ( 2005 ) on the strengths and limitations of different modes of communication in general. 2 Reversing the Instrumentality of the Social for the Economic