Abstract
AbstractWearable sensors are becoming increasingly popular in organizational research. Although validation studies that examine sensor data in conjunction with established social and psychological constructs are becoming more frequent, they are usually limited for two reasons: first, most validation studies are carried out under laboratory settings. Only a handful of studies have been carried out in real-world organizational environments. Second, for those studies carried out in field settings, reported findings are derived from a single case only, thus seriously limiting the possibility of studying the influence of contextual factors on sensor-based measurements. This article presents a validation study of expressive and instrumental ties across nine relatively small R&D teams. The convergent validity of Bluetooth (BT) detections is reported for friendship and advice-seeking ties under three organizational contexts: research labs, private companies, and university-based teams. Results show that, in general, BT detections correlated strongly with self-reported measurements. However, the organizational context affects both the strength of the observed correlation and its direction. Whereas advice-seeking ties generally occur in close spatial proximity and are best identified in university environments, friendship relationships occur at a greater spatial distance, especially in research labs. We conclude with recommendations for fine-tuning the validity of sensor measurements by carefully examining the opportunities for organizational embedding in relation to the research question and collecting complementary data through mixed-method research designs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference94 articles.
1. Almaatouq, A., Radaelli, L., Pentland, A., & Shmueli, E. (2016). Are you your friends’ friend? Poor perception of friendship ties limits the ability to promote behavioral change. PLOS ONE, 11(3), e0151588. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151588
2. Alshamsi, A., Pianesi, F., Lepri, B., Pentland, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). Network diversity and affect dynamics: The role of personality traits. PLOS ONE, 11(4), e0152358. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152358.
3. Andereggen, S., Zoller, F. A., & Boutellier, R. (2013). Sharing research equipment to bridge intraorganizational boundaries. Research-Technology Management, 56(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5601082.
4. Andersen, P., Gannon, J., & Kalchik, J. (2013). Proxemic and haptic interaction: The closeness continuum. In J. A. Hall, & M. L. Knapp (Eds.) Nonverbal communication (pp. 295–329). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
5. Baird, L. L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department? Research in Higher Education, 25(3), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991787
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献