Abstract
The Old Books, New Science (OBNS) Lab began using Slack in May 2016 to facilitate the
work of a diverse research group at the University of Toronto. Yet the OBNS Slack
does not simply facilitate scholarly communication: it also serves as a powerful
affective network, bringing together scholars in new and sometimes unexpected
configurations. The affective language of emoji is fundamental to the growth of this
community. Lab members coin new emoji that are taken up by the community eagerly,
many of which are meaningful only within the OBNS environment. It is common to
reference Slack emoji in in-person conversation; equally, the OBNS Slack is often
home to advising sessions or meetings that in another workplace would take place
face-to-face. In this way, the online environment of Slack and the in-person
environment of the lab are mutually constitutive. Such usage of Slack may, however,
also have a dark side: by celebrating affective community in the workspace, what
happens to the distinction between home and office, and consequent erosion of leisure
time? We consider whether the affective practices of the OBNS Slack might allow
personal and professional boundaries to be blurred in such a way as to prioritize the
personal.
The online messaging software Slack was originally developed to streamline business
communication within companies, and has been been embraced in that context for offering
increases in “productivity.”
[1]
With its increasing popularity, Slack has also been used for communication within
different kinds of groups, including research labs and classrooms. The existing
scholarship on the uptake of Slack within these non-commercial environments still tends
to focus on productivity or effectiveness.
[2] However, particularly in an
educational context, we challenge the idea that “efficiency” and
“productivity” are the most important features for a tool to offer a community;
we therefore examine our team’s use of Slack for its ability to nurture affective
connections.
[3]
The Old Books, New Science (OBNS) Lab,
[4] a group of faculty, postdoctoral
fellows, graduate students, undergraduates, and digital librarians at the University of
Toronto (U of T), has been using Slack since May 2016. As members of this lab, and users
of its Slack, we argue that Slack creates virtual spaces for informal interaction which,
when embraced by a community, can substitute for the accidental collisions that enable
collaboration in shared physical spaces. Because of how we choose to use Slack, it does
not simply facilitate our scholarly communication: it also serves as a powerful
affective network, bringing together scholars and technologists across generations in
new and sometimes unexpected configurations.
[5] Our online Slack communities and the
local in-person communities do not perfectly overlap, but they do intersect.
[6] Affective connections are supported both
through the informal language of Slack comment threads and through the richly
communicative emoji used by lab members. As we will discuss more fully, our particular
usage of emoji in these virtual spaces differs from usage described in previous research
on emoji, which focuses on romantic relationships and purely professional work
communication. We will show that, by using emoji with community-defined meanings to
“react” publicly to others’ posts, members of our Slack fortify community norms
and build affective bonds. Such usage of Slack may, however, also have a dark side: by
celebrating affective community in the workspace, what happens to the distinction
between home and office, and consequent erosion of leisure time? We argue that
communities have a choice in how to adopt technologies, and that the affective practices
of the OBNS Slack allow personal and professional boundaries to be blurred in such a way
as to prioritize the personal.
Our survey of OBNS Slack usage includes graphs summarizing channel participation and
representative samples from user practice. We go on to address particularities, focusing
on the ways that the supple and adaptive nature of the channels –– and especially the
generative language of emoji –– participate in the evolution of our affective
professional community. We will suggest that the flexible nature of Slack channels and
emoji “vocabulary” permits a level of control and independence that allows
individual users to shape the local Slack community, and thus participate collectively
in the formation of online virtual spaces that provide safety to their members and –– at
least potentially –– serve as a site of resistance.
Slack Overview and Initial Adoption
The OBNS lab was modelled after a science or engineering department’s “lab”
system, where individual researchers share their own work as well as contribute to a
common project. As the lab evolved, it grew from a weekly group supervisory session
for Alexandra Gillespie’s graduate students to become the nexus for a grant-funded
research endeavour, “Digital Tools for Manuscript Study”
(DTMS), which involved multiple units at U of T, including scholars from CMS and
librarians from ITS.
[7] The collaboration necessary to meet project goals required
constant communication and regular supplementation of project-related context from
each of the two teams. However, while ITS members worked together in a central
office, CMS-based OBNS members did not have dedicated space and were based at two
different U of T campuses. This limited opportunities to meet face-to-face outside of
the weekly lab meeting.
When we started using Slack about halfway through the first year of the project, it
significantly lowered our email burden (especially planning and scheduling emails),
while also opening up new possibilities for informal communication outside of the
weekly lab meetings. If anyone had a question that did not seem serious enough for
email, they could send a quick Slack message instead. This became especially useful
for OBNS graduate students away on research trips. The paleography channels
#digitaltoolsmss and #canyoureadthis continue to provide opportunities for instant
collaboration and advice when an OBNS member is working remotely, enhancing the
group’s collaborative culture. Furthermore, since Slack conversations (unlike emails)
are a semi-public record that anyone in the Slack workspace can access, new students
or employees who were not present for previous conversations found they were able to
contribute to existing communications as soon as they had joined.
[8]
We created individual channels for discussing development needs and giving detailed
feedback on usability issues during the testing phase of DTMS. In addition, we were
able to invite external collaborators as single-channel guests to discuss tool
development, stakeholder meetings, or grant applications. For example, one of our
projects,
VisColl (2018), involved substantial
collaboration with Dot Porter, Curator of Digital Research Services in the Schoenberg
Institute for Manuscript Studies at the University of Pennsylvania; rather than work
with unwieldy conference calls or expensive in-person visits, we did most of our
collaboration on Slack.
[9]
Having outlined the initial adoption of Slack in the OBNS lab, including the basic
channel configurations, usage patterns, and user experiences, we turn now to the
development of the OBNS Slack over time, focusing especially on how the virtual
spaces of the Slack environment serve its users. We deliberately use the term
“virtual spaces” (in the plural) because while Slack is often represented as
a virtual space (singular) that provides an alternative or a complement to the
physical, in-person meeting environment, OBNS experience of Slack has consisted
instead of a wide range of interlinked virtual “rooms” that members enter,
participate in, and leave at will. In this respect OBNS’s findings are similar to
those of other Slack communities.
[10] However, rather than invigilate the division of
these channels to ensure that channel activity stays separate, members of our Slack
participate in different channels in an ad hoc and flexible way, with little to no
moderation. Some of these channels are shared, some private; some last over a long
period of time, others are contingent. Some channels are intended for specific
projects, others to serve a community-based need.
In the paragraphs below, we describe the ways in which channel usage developed over
time, offering the outlines of an ontology of OBNS experience with Slack. We
emphasize that this usage is not prescriptive, but descriptive, recognizing that
other research communities will take different paths with their Slack usage. We then
turn to emoji, focusing on how these too developed over time. We note differing
patterns of emoji usage across our Slack, and describe the wide variety of user
experience in the OBNS community. In particular, we distinguish between different
modes of emoji usage, ranging from the affective (which purposely seeks to comment on
and inflect the text input of other group members) to what we have labelled the
“decorative,” which serves a very different function — although the
decorative emoji, too, add to the overall affective community grown and fostered in
the OBNS Slack environment.
Channel activity within the OBNS community quickly expanded beyond the default
#general and #random channels. We now have, among other channels, #pedagogy,
#tolkien, #grumbling, and, the most popular, #daily_cat, where members of the team
post their cats (and dogs, and birds, and even turtles). Figure 1 shows a detailed
breakdown of OBNS Slack’s public channels and their lifespans. Each bar stretches
from the channel’s creation to the date of its most recent message.
[11] Orange channels are those which have reached a
natural end, and are no longer in active use. These “retired” channels fall into
two broad categories: most were created to support time-limited projects which were
ultimately completed (e.g., #ncs2018 for the New Chaucer Society conference hosted at
U of T); the other two channels, #daily-check-in and #asana (named for the
productivity tool containing several projects’ to-do lists), were
“accountability” channels which faded from use due to shifts in the OBNS user
culture. The evolving nature of the culture can also be seen in the needs met by each
new channel. As Figure 2 shows more clearly, channel creation ebbs and flows over
time. Early channels like #digitaltoolsmss, #stow, and #canterburytales are all
project-focused workspaces.
[12] The addition in August 2016 of #humanresources (a slightly
tongue-in-cheek name for the channel in which research assistants working on various
projects are reminded with animated gifs to submit their monthly timesheets) reveals
the Slack’s burgeoning role as the centre of multiple financial relationships. It was
not until the emergence of #daily_cat in November 2016, six months after OBNS began
using Slack, that the first purely non-work-related channel beyond #random was
created.
[13] It was followed by #grumbling, a
distinctly personal space to vent negative feelings and receive sympathy, but also by
#canyoureadthis, a work-oriented channel for lab members to share illegible
manuscript images. As the Slack grows, each channel constitutes its own space, with
distinctive social patterns and norms. Some project-focused channels host extended
ongoing conversations, such as the #slackmetachannel that shaped this very paper.
When someone initially enters such a channel, they often need to catch up on previous
messages in order to respond, and much conversation occurs as live back-and-forth.
Conversely, some channels, such as #daily_cat and #poetry_channel, are more
asynchronous: members can browse the “back catalogue” of posts if they choose,
but can also contribute a cat photo or a poem without addressing previous posts. Most
channels fall between these two ends of the spectrum, including #general.
The #general channel, as the only channel to which every full member must subscribe,
is usually intended to be a low-traffic channel for major announcements only.
[14] However, in our Slack, announcements often spur
conversations, giving the channel more a feeling of a common room than of a podium.
Indeed, 91% of the members of #general have posted in the channel, indicating that it
is a space in which even “junior” members of the lab are able to converse. In
contrast, #humanresources was specifically created to be a place where little
conversation happens and thus urgent materials would not get lost in a flood of
commentary. Only 53% of its members have posted messages.
Despite their importance to the Slack as a whole, all of the public channels combined
are home to less than half of the total messages sent in OBNS Slack. As Figure 3
shows, messages in public channels are always outnumbered by direct messages.
Messages are counted by Slack as “direct messages” (DMs) regardless of whether
they are sent between only two people or are in ad hoc groups defined by their
participants, as in a group text message. Such DMs massively outnumber private
channels, the other method by which members can talk outside of public
channels.
[15] The lab’s
reliance on DMs is somewhat unusual: in an educational application of Slack described
by Spencer Ross, for example, private channels were the most popular communication
venue (making up 43% of all messages sent), followed by DMs (33%), and then public
channels (23%) [
Ross 2019].
[16] The OBNS lab’s high volume of direct
messages overall shows that the lab prioritizes the affective structures of
one-on-one or small-group conversations. While private channels are defined by their
subject matter and talk within them is therefore restricted to a single purpose, DMs
are defined by their participants, not their topics. Private conversations without
set topics allows mingled discussion in which nothing is “off topic.” In the
course of one DM thread between two co-authors of this article, for example,
conversational ground covered the logistics of cat-sitting, the intensive work of
writing a report for a different department, and career advice — topics that are all
unrelated to any official lab project.
The presence of such a robust DM environment speaks to the lived-in feeling of the
Slack. OBNS Slack culture is more than the representative digital space in which
members operate publicly , both because of the robust and multiple levels of exchange
that take place within the Slack, and because private conversations that take place
in DMs support the development of personal friendships that are manifested both
virtually and in person. The accessibility of contact via DMs contributes to a sense
that one’s labmates are always “close by,” easily contacted for a casual
question or to share an anecdote. In a physical, in-person workspace, it is
impossible to truly separate the personal and professional because of personal
interactions that are spurred on by directly perceivable traits that
people cannot hide (like a new haircut, or an upset facial expression). On a Slack
with a low DM ratio, one could see an artificial “professional talk only” space
begin to develop that would not be possible in a real-world workplace. In contrast,
OBNS Slack’s high DM count reinforces the manner in which it operates as a true
virtual work space, with varied methods of communication and
interaction.
Emoji and Affect
Our examination of emoji has little precedent in the existing literature.
Bai 2019’s systematic review of 167 research articles about emoji
identified several common approaches to studying emoji in different fields. Research
in computer science, marketing, medicine, and education (85 articles, or 50%)
typically attempts to understand the meanings of specific emoji, or presents case
studies using emoji to conduct surveys.
[17] Psychology and communications research (53 articles, or 32%)
largely seeks to describe personal or cultural contexts which shape emoji usage,
especially the quantity of usage.
[18] Research in linguistics and behavioural
science (31 articles, or 18%) explores questions most similar to our own: scholars in
these fields examine the content and function of specific communications taking place
with emoji, and describe the interpersonal motivation and impact of these
communications. Some linguistics research, such as
Jibril
(2013) and
López (2017) has tried to assess
whether emoji can function as their own language, but most linguists (such as
Alshenqeeti (2016) and
Na'aman (2017)) instead seek to describe how emoji contribute nonverbal
content to impact the interpretation of written language. Most directly related to
our own case study of our communication with each other, behavioural science
researchers have described how emoji can manage and maintain interpersonal
relationships [
Chairunnisa and Benedictus 2017]
[
Riordan 2017]
[
Albawardi 2018], or construct and express a personal identity [
Ge and ACM 2019]
[
Kaye et al. 2016]. However, even in this last category of research,
describing the role of emoji in personal relationships and identity, there is no
direct comparison for our case study. Existing work discusses emoji use in either
private one-on-one personal conversations or in large-scale public or semi-public
social networks like Twitter and Facebook,
[19] both of which have different core dynamics
than the medium-sized group conversations which take place on Slack. It is a sign of
the affective nature of our usage of Slack that the best parallels to our emoji use
come from the papers on intimate relationships, such as
Kelly (2015). In their study of two-person text message exchanges,
[20] Kelly and Watts identify three overlapping uses of emoji that are
“relationally meaningful,” each of which are at play in
lab communications: emoji are used to maintain a conversational connection, to permit
play, and to create what they term a sense of “shared and secret
uniqueness”
[
Kelly and Watts 2015].
Although creative use of emoji was a part of the OBNS Slack culture from its first
day, emoji usage increased and gained complexity over time. A turning point in both
channel development and emoji usage occurred in our early experimentation with a
#daily-check-in channel. Each morning, a bot would message each Slack member to
generate the channel’s content by asking in sequence for each member to define
yesterday’s accomplishments, today’s goals, and current obstacles. As each member
wrote about their daily tasks, however, the affective side to the lab unfolded.
Obstacles of sickness, frustration, and personal grief were met first tentatively and
then confidently with demonstrations of care. The lab’s early emoji use is
comparatively sparse, clustering around expressions of illness or frustration with
emoji indicating empathy, and around photos of pets shared to cheer or comfort.
[21] Over time, as lab members became more comfortable with
sharing the personal and affective, emoji use expanded to celebrate or cheer on
personal goals and victories in teaching, academic work, or administration.
November 2016 saw the creation of a new channel, #daily_cat, which was the first
channel after #random to have a specific non-project focus, and which confirmed OBNS
Slack’s focus on care as an integral part of the digital workplace experience. As
#daily-check-in filled with expressions of empathy and personal struggles in addition
to its original more narrow aim of self-assessment and goal-setting, lab members
began sharing pictures of cute animals to cheer each other up. Originally intended to
save #daily-check-in from increasing numbers of cat photos, #daily_cat became a
voluntary, recreational place where members of OBNS, no matter their employment
status or place in the academic hierarchy, were equal in their love of felines. Lab
members posted photos of their own cats, or of cats they encountered “in the
wild”; others contributed pictures of internet cats or other cute animals.
“Cat” soon came to mean any animal: lab members have posted photos of dogs,
turtles, birds, and more.
Certain cats, especially those owned by lab members, became celebrities. Jacquelyn
Clements, one of #daily-check-in’s prolific cat-posters, fostered cats for a few
months just as #daily_cat was becoming active and shared photographs with the
channel. Soon lab members became invested in the saga of Chloe, a beautiful black and
white longhair, and her search for a “forever home.” After a near-miss with a
potential adopter, Chloe eventually became a “foster fail” and was adopted by
Clements, much to the jubilation of #daily_cat. Chloe’s adoption elicited a
“platter” (i.e., long string) of emoji, including the first example of a
custom lab cat emoji. In Figure 6, the fourth emoji reacting to the news is itself a
custom emoji created from the photograph of her at her adoption. Custom emoji for
specific cats have become commonplace in #daily_cat; the creation of a new custom
emoji indicates that the cat is now part of the wider OBNS community. These custom
emoji serve not only as a way of welcoming new cats into the #daily_cat rotation, but
also creating a sense of permanence and belonging for the new lab member. These emoji
may then be used throughout the Slack as an expression of care. One example is that
of :cat-hug:, which is commonly used to denote reassurance and caring for a team
member in need of encouragement. Originally a photograph of Akbari’s cats Bob and
Charles snuggling, captioned “Hold still and let me wash
you,” its wider use transcends its origin in #daily_cat — so much so that
one lab member was unaware that it represented specific lab cats.
These personalized cat emoji led to a wave of tea emoji, celebratory emoji including
a rainbow sheep and dancing Mr. Darcy, and finally the outgrowth of emoji as specific
as “Voynich ladies” (a medieval image of naked women in a
green spa, which denotes a rare and surprising luxurious experience, or alternately a
conspiracy).
[22]
“Decorating” a post with one or more emoji now operates as a language of digital
gestures showing interest, comprehension, appreciation for the other’s presence, and
(with greater intensity depending on the number or creativity of emoji) excitement or
approbation for an idea. We lifted a number of “reward animals” from Asana, a
project management tool we used early in the first grant project; when someone did
not want to do a task, a common encouragement was to shout “Think of the
unicorns!”
[23] While we gradually abandoned Asana and returned to a more
ad hoc and decentralized mode of task organization, we kept the part that still fit
with the more horizontal and distributed way that we conceived of our work — namely,
the reward animals.
Our most common emoji currently include “this^,”
“100%,” thumbs-up, smiles, frowns, and lovehearts, but many Slack users have
individualized emoji that have come to represent them –– the boar, the two cats side
by side, the frantically typing cat, the dancing party wizard. Many of these
individualized emoji were created by Slack members or downloaded for the Slack, but
others are default emoji that have taken on additional personal meaning in OBNS
Slack. For example, King told the Slack a story about her parents’ home in Hawaii
playing host to wild boars each winter, an unusual situation which elicited the
heretofore little-used :boar:. Months later, she greeted the Slack with a tale of a
bizarre situation on public transit (see Figure 8 below). Lockhart reacted with a
small emoji platter, including :boar:, and declared that :boar: now had an extra
meaning, signifying “incredible story that could only happen to
@juliaking.” Now regular news updates from King featuring less fantastical
happenings still elicit :boar:, which has become personalized.
The impact of these emoji is due to the affective work underlying them.
[24] As each lab member
contributes a novel use of emoji, their in-the-moment play builds over time into a
unique shared language. Kelly and Watts note that “[i]n
interaction design, effort is typically seen as something that should be
minimised; the less work a user has to do, the better,” but that in
interpersonal relationships, effort can hold value, since “invested effort can indicate caring towards others”
[
Kelly and Watts 2015, 3]. Accordingly, deploying a rarer emoji indicates
special attention to the post thus decorated. Adding a new custom emoji to decorate
the post indicates that something very important has been said and/or that a new need
has been identified in the Slack. For instance, :eyestoothless:, an emoji of fierce,
catlike staring eyes, made from a screen capture of Toothless the dragon in the first
How to Train Your Dragon film, is one example of
Kelly and Watt’s relationally meaningful emoji. Originally added in December 2016
because of a need in #daily_cat, :eyestoothless: now represents unwavering attention
and judgment in other contexts and is one of the most widely used and enduring emoji
across the Slack. It subsequently took on a secondary significance within #daily_cat
to refer to Akbari’s cat Bob, whom it resembles.
As these examples show, the emoji moves between literal and figurative references, in
which different details are salient. As a representation of the kitten’s fierceness,
the first use draws on a reference to Toothless the dragon in the source film;
elsewhere, in #daily_cat, this meaning is expanded to represent Bob even when he is
not fierce due to a literal resemblance in colouring. For the joke on close reading
in Figure 10, the second use draws on the intensity of the eyes, and on the
community’s pre-existing association of the emoji with fierceness. It is the history
of :eyestoothless: within the lab that makes it more appealing than the default
:eyes: emoji, which could also humorously indicate intense scrutiny of a text. The
creative invention of new meanings over time, in itself, constitutes the value of
these emoji. Our experience thus counters Ian Bogost’s general claim that “emoji are becoming more specific and less flexible as more icons
appear,” with the result that “[m]atching icons to
words encourages fixity of meaning, especially as it becomes harder to find any
single emoji by scrolling”
[
Bogost 2019]. On the contrary, the coining of additional emoji within
the OBNS community has facilitated an exuberant proliferation of new meanings. This
proliferation, in turn, has fuelled the interpersonal engagement of the OBNS lab
members. While Kelly and Watts studied partnered relationships in their survey of
“relationally meaningful” emoji usage, their findings
nonetheless effectively describe the lab’s experience, highlighting the affective
nature of the conversations occurring within this “work”
space [
Kelly and Watts 2015].
The affective role of emoji production and use is also evident in the soft
distinction between reactive and decorative emoji in the OBNS Slack. Reactive emoji
express a direct emotional response to the affect of the post: a screaming face in
response to a terrible story; a thumbs-up to express agreement; a loveheart to
express adoration. By contrast, decorative emoji convey reader interest and
understanding by representing the content or subject matter of the post in symbolic
or literal form. Emoji reactions in OBNS Slack show the original poster that their
post has been read by the community. In Figure 11 below, the emoji represent
passages and themes from the Old English poem Beowulf as
well as the autumnal day observed by Bolintineanu. Decorating a post with emoji in
this way enables the reader to interact creatively with both the content of the post
and its creator. The purpose is to delight or surprise the original poster by
conveying a response beyond a conventional reaction. These reactions can be obvious
referents (:fallen_leaf: directly referring to “my tree slowly losing its
leaves”), in-group referents (only Slack members familiar with Beowulf will recognize :dragon:’s relevance to “Beowulf
lecture”), obscure referents that may require explanation (:amphora:
representing the hoard of the last survivor), or purely symbolic or metaphorical
responses (a night sky standing in for coldness, transience, death, an emotional
response to Beowulf, or any other feeling a reader might
attribute to it). Decoration takes advantage of the range of emoji available in the
Slack interface, a functionality that invites these kinds of surprise encounters.
As we have shown above, both channel structures and emoji usage developed over time
in the OBNS environment, and both of these contributed substantially to the
development of a community that is at once professional and personal, work-oriented
and open to spontaneous play, intellectual and affective. While some channels were
set up deliberately, geared toward a particular project’s needs or addressing a
well-defined set of tasks (some time-limited, some ongoing), other channels emerged
more organically in response to the needs and desires of the lab members. Similarly,
emoji usage within the OBNS Slack serves not just a utilitarian function (e.g.,
:thumbsup: signalling agreement with a plan of action) but also an affective one,
building rapport both bilaterally and communally. “Decorative” emoji reactions,
in particular, offer a kind of group communication distinct from other described
emoji usage, by mirroring a member’s own message back to them visually to show that
they are being heard. The coining of new emoji also signals an additional level of
affective engagement, based on the time and effort devoted to the task. In the
following section, we explore the economic circumstances that underlie the affective
community, considering to what extent the virtual spaces of the OBNS Slack permit the
growth of a horizontal network of interpersonal connection, and to what extent
hierarchical structures persist within even this horizontal network. We then consider
how the virtual spaces of the OBNS Slack community both work within and resist the
economic imperatives of the university.
Affect and Profit
The OBNS lab is in many respects a horizontal community, with a strong sense of
shared goals and responsibilities. The tone of the community has from the beginning
been set by Gillespie, the lab’s founder and PI, who has established a work
environment that seeks to enhance inclusivity and access and to model practices of
care of self and of others that promote well being and personal growth.
[25] At the same time,
however, it is undeniable that a vertical structure underlies the community,
generated by the economic and administrative environment of the university workplace.
Some regular OBNS members hold senior faculty positions, including chair or director
roles, and are tenured; others hold faculty positions, but are untenured or
pre-tenure; some have short-term hourly contracts following the completion of the
PhD, while others inhabit staff positions prior to entering doctoral study or without
the intention of entering a graduate program; others are current students whose
income comes from a variety of sources which may include OBNS research grants. In the
following pages, we consider how this paradoxical nature of the lab — both
horizontal, in terms of shared tasks, workflow, and affective community; and
vertical, in terms of economic and administrative structures — is expressed within
the virtual space of OBNS Slack, and suggest that the dynamic character of those
spaces might challenge the economic imperatives of the university.
Our assessment of the role of emoji runs counter to Luke Stark and Kate Crawford’s
work highlighting the use of emoji in workplace communications [
Stark and Crawford 2015]. In “The Conservatism of Emoji: Work,
Affect, and Communication”, Stark and Crawford compile a history of emoji,
particularly in the workplace, contextualized alongside phenomena like the original
smiley face, emoticons, digital stickers, and reaction gifs. They describe an “oscillating dynamic, whereby affect is captured by capital through
proprietary cultural representations and subsequently escapes, only to be
recaptured through new technocultural forms”
[
Stark and Crawford 2015, 3]. Although new methods for the expression of
emotion can initially provide a burst of affective liberation, Stark and Crawford
write, the top-down technological insistence on conformity ultimately repurposes
affective expression to serve the exploitative demands of capitalism. The restricted,
standard forms of emoji ultimately foreclose individualized personal expression.
Their examination of emoji in workplace communications focuses on the tendency for
employers to demand an ultimately hollow performance of cheerful sociability from
employees at work. At best, they argue, “emoji are a prophylactic
against the visceral traumas of what
Melissa Gregg
terms the worker’s ‘schizophrenic and unpredictable encounter’ with a culture
of white-collar technical work characterized by a cynical, mediated
sociality”
[
Stark and Crawford 2015, 6]. Two interlinked aspects of the emoji usage in the
OBNS Slack seem to depart from this grim picture in which “the
emancipatory potential of emoji is restricted by their industrial and commercial
limitations”
[
Stark and Crawford 2015, 8]: first, the flourishing of custom emoji created by
and for OBNS members which allow individual expression without invigilation or
regulation by any governing body or administrator; and, second, the intentional
blurring of professional and personal interaction in order to prioritize the
personal.
Custom emoji inhabit a very special place within the overall landscape of the OBNS
Slack.
[26] Scholars examining the history
and use of emoji often draw attention to the unexpected role of the Unicode
Consortium as a centralized authority dictating the emoji with which everyone may
converse.
[27] However, custom emoji introduce
the potential for personal creativity and expression. Standard emoji are used
alongside custom emoji borrowed from other internet contexts, and those created by
lab members specifically for lab use.
An example of our varied emoji vocabulary, including custom emoji, can be seen in
Figure 12, which includes a congratulatory emoji “platter” in which multiple emoji
are woven together to indicate a subtly nuanced feeling of praise. The platter opens
with :party_parrot:, an animated, colour-changing emoji based on Sirocco, an
internet-famous kakapo.
[28] Available as a free download
for any Slack, :party_parrot: has many costumes, and, crucially, a slow frame rate
that enables editing. (During one lab conference trip to Italy, Mitchell edited the
default :party_parrot: to become :italian_parrot:, which flashed the colors of the
Italian flag.) In this platter, default Slack emoji like :heart_eyes: and :tada:
mingle with custom emoji including :catamazed:, :asana_yeti:, :disco_darcy:, and
:hwaet:. This last emoji is taken from the first word of the Old English
Beowulf, and is used as an exclamation of excitement,
sometimes signalling a new beginning. The detailed and highly specific nature of
these custom emoji, and the rich background and context that each of them carries,
contributes meaningfully to the formation and maintenance of the community. Beyond
this, however, the creation of a custom emoji is an act of affective labour. The
process involves research, to locate suitable base images, and the application of
technical skill, to modify them and upload them. The voluntary role of creator of
custom emoji is a specialized one: three lab members (Laura Mitchell, Lawrence
Evalyn, and Jessica Lockhart) have added 90% of the OBNS Slack’s custom emoji. All
three describe emoji-creation as not just a procrastinatory amusement, but a public
service: a new emoji contributes a new mode of expression for the group as a whole.
Evalyn, in particular, cites emoji creation as a crucial personal connection while he
was away from the physical lab space in Toronto and not part of any of the ongoing
medieval projects. The labour of creating custom emoji is not insignificant: on the
contrary, it serves as a kind of “gift” to the OBNS community that cements its
affective bonds. The emotional labour devoted to the community surely results in
common profit, as long as an ethic of self-reflection and openness continues to
inform our work. But how is such labour to be accounted for, or compensated?
In considering the labour that is required to sustain the affective community —
which, in turn, enables the professional productivity of the OBNS lab and its
contributions to the university, both academic and economic — we must turn to the
implied corporate setting that underlies usage of Slack. As in other workplace
environments, Slack usage in OBNS is conducive to creating workflows in many ways,
ranging from the punctual submission of timesheets by research assistants to the
generation of proposals and reports for granting agencies. This quality, however,
extends more broadly into the lives of lab members, embracing both professional and
personal spheres. Such blurring existed from the outset: Slack was running constantly
in the background while students were in class, staff members were in their office,
and instructors were teaching, so that the overall shared project labour was
consistently present and lab members were available via Slack for consultation even
while other activities were underway. This meant that, whether we were working or
not, we were connected to an online chat room filled with many of our closest peers,
colleagues, and mentors. The #daily-check-in channel, with its bot-enforced demands
for details, particularly emphasized the public display of to-do lists. It would be
all too easy for the omnipresence of Slack to be a looming Panopticon, invigilating
the participants to make sure that the appropriate measure of labour would be
extracted from each one. OBNS Slack, however, has evolved as a very different digital
environment, in a number of respects. Because of the plural nature of our digital
spaces, engagement in a wide range of professional and personal modes is possible,
while the fecundity of our emoji coinage and usage provides a way for community
members to express care, whether self-directed or directed toward others.
The extent to which our space is one that resists the workplace’s demand for constant
labour is evident in the kinds of things for which we hold ourselves accountable: not
the constant completion of ever more tasks, but the self-protective measures of
saying “no,” taking breaks, and acknowledging when we have done “enough.”
This significantly contrasts with
Bunce's (2018)
ethnographic study of the IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks)
News
[29] newsroom as it adopted Slack as its primary mode of communication.
Although the study’s authors describe Slack as encouraging collaboration and
deepening relationships, they mean more effective professional relationships, rather
than friendships. Perhaps as a result, users of the IRIN News Slack describe
experiencing more negative impacts from “always-on” culture than in our Slack.
Journalists describe working later than intended because they can see indicators that
their coworkers are still online, feeling the need to compete with them; they also
describe finding it difficult to step away from Slack, to accomplish needed work or
to enjoy a break. They concluded that the infiltration of work into personal time was
likely due to the strong role of managers in hierarchically directing the creation
and use of the Slack, by creating channels and providing feedback to employees
publicly. In the case of an academic work environment, where work schedules are often
fluid and are not constrained to the 9 to 5 demands of an office, the
“always-on” mentality has long been a feature of the
profession.
[30] Perhaps because academics are used to a
non-traditional work schedule, a horizontally collaborative space like Slack is less
jarring for them than it would be for a traditional office worker. Overall, the
newsroom offers an interesting contrast to our own experience of Slack, which reveals
that increasing horizontal collaboration and fostering affective community are not
the same.
In this respect, an environment of shared accountability in OBNS Slack promotes the
sense of flattened hierarchies, a shared horizontal community. This is evident in the
Slack channel now dedicated to this purpose, #accountability. This channel originally
began in July 2018 as #votenow: lab founder Alexandra Gillespie, having found she was
agreeing to do more things than she had time for, asked lab members to weigh in on
individual requests for her service. For two months, the channel functioned as
originally intended, with graduate students and other more junior lab members
furnishing yeses, nos, or praise (for already having said no) as appropriate.
However, at the end of September, one lab member (a recent PhD) chipped in with their
own question, and soon after Gillespie asked the channel to ensure she completed a
specific set of tasks by 10 a.m. the next day. The purpose of the channel had
suddenly enlarged, and its usage accordingly boomed. The newly renamed
#accountability immediately became popular, with several updates, requests, and
jubilant reports of task completion within hours of being opened more widely. Six
people joined on the first day, and at present nineteen members (~36% of the
population of the Slack) now use the channel regularly for requests for sympathy,
updates on task completion, grumbling, workshopping tasks, and co-working sprints.
Accountability, in other words, is not simply understood as the employee’s obligation
to the employer: on the contrary, it is understood as the obligation to take care of
oneself and one another, in a horizontal framework of shared expectations and mutual
support. Moreover, the use of the explicit task-setting channel, #daily-check-in,
eventually collapsed in favour of the completely work-free daily channel, #daily_cat,
as described above. These two examples emphasize how the OBNS lab has rejected
Slack’s intended “productivity” and “efficiency” uses in favour of community
building. Papapanagiotou (2018) observes the rise of “social machines”
structuring an increasing proportion of human interactions, in which “participants typically have limited autonomy to define and shape the
machines they are part of”
[
Papapanagiotou et al. 2018, 1208]. As part of their call for the
development of decentralized participant-driven social machines, they note the danger
in the fact that “monolithic platforms provide useful services,
but they stifle innovation, and enforce centralised notions of what sociality may
or may not be”
[
Papapanagiotou et al. 2018, 1208]. Our lab operates within Slack’s
social machine, but we contend that nevertheless this is a freeing and creative
experience for its users.
Conclusion
Looking back on OBNS Slack usage over time, and the ways in which the channels served
as virtual “rooms” for our community, we see how the dynamic quality of our
Slack is fundamental to its success and to the level of satisfaction experienced by
its users. Initially, we organized and labelled our Slack channels to reflect the
different aspects of the research project: discussions about conferences we were
attending had an individual channel that was separate from the channel about
publications we were producing, and we used the two Slack default channels, #general
and #random, for their intended purpose. Team members could respond to messages in
the assigned channel, through direct message, or by creating an emoji reaction to the
message, and we made substantial use of all three methods of communication. However,
we soon found that #random was insufficient for the amount of non-project-related
conversation and collaboration that was taking place. We discovered that our use of
Slack was growing in such a way that was, although unanticipated, one of the greatest
benefits of the entire undertaking. In addition to the official designated channels
we had put in place, other unrelated projects were beginning to spring up in private
channels between team members. Team members worked on articles, organized guest
lectures in one another’s classes, and applied for grants and funding. Slack became a
valuable internal resource: those engaged in university teaching talked about the
classes they were taking and teaching, while doctoral students talked about their
dissertation research and writing, and members generally talked about how to navigate
the various stages of graduate school and beyond. Because of the diversity of the
team, with people at many different stages of their academic careers as well as PhDs
who have taken non-academic career paths, there was a wide variety of experiences
that the graduate students could draw upon. It is clear that Slack allowed all
members of the OBNS team to get to know one another better and to create shared
spaces for our geographically scattered team. OBNS Slack now exists for itself; we
have overcome the limitations of physical space availability on our campus to create
our own virtual social-professional space. In fact, team members, including some of
the authors of this article, have moved across the country and abroad for other jobs
and continue to be active within the non-project channels, which is an indication of
how OBNS Slack has grown beyond its origin as a project management tool. The story we
have told in this article is illustrative but not prescriptive: we recognize that
different research and work communities will grow their Slack in other ways. If there
is an exemplary quality in OBNS Slack, that quality lies in its organic, adaptive
nature. The tension between the horizontal structure of our self-reflective affective
community, and the vertical structure of the administrative and economic landscape
that OBNS inhabits within the university, is a productive one. The virtual spaces of
our OBNS Slack are not static, prefabricated rooms but (to use a metaphor) garden
spaces, which grow and change over time, responding to changes within our community
and in the world around us.
Notes
[1] A key example here which we will revisit is Bunce 2018, a yearlong ethnographic study of Slack in a
newsroom. They found that introducing Slack as a tool in the workplace enhanced
communication efficiency and enabled new and better collaborative projects, but also
eroded boundaries between personal and professional life by giving managers greater
access to their employees, allowing professional expectations to intrude upon
previously private time. Other studies of workplace usage of Slack include Wang’s (2019) use of machine learning to predict the
performance of project teams based on their conversational patterns in Slack. [2] For example, Gofine (2017) and Perkel (2017) both
discuss the use of Slack within scientific research groups, emphasizing the
convenience of increased and rapid communication for project management. More
pedagogical uses of Slack are discussed in Sabin
(2018), Tuhkala (2018), and Ross (2019), which describe classroom implementations of
Slack in order to communicate in a way which will feel “up to date” to young
adult students. These papers pay more attention to the idea of encouraging
collaborative interactions between peers within Slack, but maintain an emphasis on
the “professionalizing” nature of Slack, as in Tuukala’s (2018) assessment that introducing students to Slack is valuable
because it is “similar to what students would expect and
experience in the workplace.” For the wider context concerning the
emergence of “productivity” as a measure of job performance and the way it
negatively impacts workers’ efforts to define work limits, see Gregg 2018. [3] While Gregg et al. (2010) notes, in the introduction to The Affect Theory Reader, that there is “no single, generalizable theory of affect”, they define affect as “a gradient of bodily capacity — a supple incrementalism of
ever-modulating force-relations — that rises and falls not only along various
rhythms and modalities of encounter but also through the troughs and sieves of
sensation and sensibility”
[Gregg and Seigworth 2010, 3]. [5] This affective network is sustained,
in part, by the exchange of virtual objects — emoji — which serve as “happy objects,” as formulated by Ahmed (2010), whose “sticky” quality establishes
and cultivates affective bonds that link the members of the network: “Affect is what sticks, or what sustains or preserves the connection
between ideas, values, and objects”
[Ahmed 2010, 29]. [6] The
authors of this article, for example, have a range of connections with each other,
but have not all been part of a single project together before writing. Lawrence
Evalyn (U of Toronto), C. E. M. Henderson (U of Toronto), Julia King (U of Bergen),
Jessica Lockhart (U of Toronto), Laura Mitchell (St. Thomas More College, U of
Saskatchewan), and Suzanne Conklin Akbari (Institute for Advanced Study) are all
members of OBNS Slack in different capacities. Mitchell joined on Day 1 of OBNS
Slack, 13 May 2016. Evalyn, Henderson, and Lockhart joined on 6 June 2016, Akbari on
7 June 2016, and King on 27 June 2016. King and Mitchell have since moved to other
universities, but were affiliated with the University of Toronto until Summer 2018;
Akbari moved on in Summer 2019.
[7] The OBNS lab has now been involved in two major
grant-funded projects. The first, “Digital Tools for
Manuscript Study” (https://digitaltoolsmss.library.utoronto.ca), which set out to create a
toolbox of digital humanities programs to facilitate research on medieval
manuscripts, ran from 2015-2018, and received $773,000 USD from the Andrew W.
Mellon Foundation (reference #31500651), with Principal Investigators Alexandra
Gillespie and Sian Meikle. Akbari has joined Gillespie and Meikle as PI on OBNS’s
current project, “The Book and the Silk Roads”, also
funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation ($920,000 USD, reference
#1802-05532). [8] The exception
to this is direct messages and private channels. New users can be added to private
channels and view the previous conversation; however, it is still accessible only
to the members of those channels.
[9] U of T’s instance of VisColl relied upon Porter’s data
model, described in Porter (2017). [10] For a description of a Slack community’s
purposeful enforcement of distinctive channels, see Melvær (2017). Of their practice of regulating channel separation,
Melvær writes, “We have adopted the Slack’s :raccoon: strategy
of redirecting discussions to their respective channels. This is to reduce
channel noise, but also for purposes of finding the discussion later. It can be
useful to start the redirection with a link posted to OP message, to create a
cross reference.” [11] Data
collected January 17, 2019.
[12] These channel names refer to different parts of the
Digital Tools for Manuscript Study project. #digitaltoolsmss was for general
project discourse, #canterburytales for the portion of the project focused on
collating the Canterbury Tales for use with VisColl,
and #stow for the portion of the project that used the annotations of English
antiquarian John Stow (1524/5-1605) as a use case for development of an Omeka
plug-in.
[13] It is notable that although we stuck to “business-like” channel
formats for six months, a relatively long time in the lifetime of the Slack,
channels like #general and #daily-check-in contained messages that mixed the
professional and the personal before the adoption of #daily_cat. See below for
further discussion on this phenomenon.
[14]
Slack provides tips for managing #general, which suggests this usage [Slack n.d.]. [15] In early 2017, private channels were used for a few projects that
required external collaboration from people who were not full members of the
Slack; after these were completed, private conversations shifted to DMs. Slack’s
pricing model charged by the number of “full members,” and for external
collaborators who functionally only needed to be in one channel, we took advantage
of the “single-channel guest” membership option, which was free. The switch
to DM occurred, practically, because the OBNS team was able to get educational
pricing approval from Slack — and thus was no longer paying for members active in
public channels. However, some lab members, including Gillespie, began work on
projects early in 2017 and collaborated via DM with one or two members of the lab.
Other spikes in DM activity occurred around the time of the 2018 NCS Congress,
when members of the lab served as conference management and volunteer support, and
contacted each other via Slack DM rather than text message.
[16] Ross uses Slack as a professor
teaching undergraduate courses in marketing. Although the context of a class, in
which students are evaluated by a central instructor for a grade, creates a
hierarchical environment, one of Ross’s findings is that “students felt that Slack transformed the course into a team-like atmosphere,
reducing the monolithic feel of the instructor–student relationship and
transforming the content into one that felt more student-centric,
collaborative, and egalitarian”
[Ross 2019, 15]. [19] Scholarship on emoji in Twitter is
particularly prevalent, as in Barbieri (2016),
Sari (2014), and Park
(2014), likely because of the availability of data from Twitter’s public
conversations. Scholarship on private conversations typically examines text
messages or text-like instant messages, as in Pettigrew (2009) and Perry (2011), both
of which study romantic couples. [20] A
major difference between a two-person text conversation and a group chat in Slack
has to do with the position of emoji in the conversational tempo. Two people
texting are in a pattern of constant back and forth, where one person is always in
the position of needing to respond to the other; in a texting app, emoji can only
be sent in or as text messages. Sending an emoji in a text to one’s partner just
means “saying” that image to them in the moment. In a group chat, however,
there is no sense of whose conversational “turn” it is at any given moment,
since anyone can respond. Moreover, in addition to allowing emoji to be sent in or
as messages within the conversational flow, Slack also has a feature for emoji
“reactions” to be attached to other people’s messages. These
“reaction” emoji provide a response to someone’s statements without
interrupting them, or without reviving the whole conversation if the main flow of
discussion has moved on. As a result, rather than keeping a conversation going
without words, as Kelly (2015) describes in text
conversations, we argue, emoji reactions in Slack provide a backchannel that gets
outside the conversation to build a more general sense of an activated social
space. [21]
The default emoji :fire:, easily bringing to mind “burning rage,”
“dumpster fire,”
“I want to burn everything down,” and “I’m on fire” (a phrase used in
lab to indicate a desperate, urgent need for assistance or graduate supervision),
was particularly popular as an empathetic response to a wide variety of adverse
circumstances.
[22] The image comes from the famously unintelligible Voynich
manuscript (Beinecke MS 408).
[23] Asana randomly rewards task completion by sending a unicorn, a
yeti, a narwhal, or a phoenix across the user’s screen. This does not happen with
every completed task; rather, the potential of possibly getting a reward animal
incentivizes the user to continue completing tasks. Needless to say, we were
quickly hooked.
[24] For
further discussion and definition of “affective work”,
see Ahmed (2010). [25] While we
use “work environment” here and elsewhere, OBNS is, unlike a science lab, not
first and foremost a working lab with a shared project. “Work” for us refers
to the variety of duties that lab members undertake, which includes teaching and
research unrelated to the lab’s project(s). While all of us have performed
research, administration, or consultation for the lab at some point or another,
our degree of involvement has varied widely. Most new lab members enter the lab
not as new project employees but as Gillespie’s graduate students (who then may
later be given work related to an OBNS grant project).
[26] The custom emoji have particular impact within the affective community
of our Slack, following Ahmed’s account of individual agency within the economy of
“happy objects”: We are moved
by things. And in being moved, we make things. An object can be affective by
virtue of its own location (the object might be here, which is where I
experience this or that affect) and the timing of its appearance (the object
might be now, which is when I experience this or that affect). To experience
an object as being affective or sensational is to be directed not only
toward an object, but to “whatever” is around that object, which
includes what is behind the object, the conditions of its arrival. What is
around an object can become happy: for instance, if you receive something
delightful in a certain place, then the place itself is invested with
happiness, as being ‘what’ good feeling is directed toward. Or if you are
given something by somebody whom you love, then the object itself acquires
more affective value: just seeing something can make you think of another
who gave you that something. If something is close to a happy object then it
can become happy by association.
[Ahmed 2010, 33]
[27] Kim (1992), for example, has
examined the political implications of the inclusion and exclusion of
language-based character sets in the broader Unicode standard, and [Berard 2018]
has applied a similar framework specifically to the definition of standard emoji.
Kim and Berard both assert that the technological standards defined by the Unicode
Consortium’s paid membership of corporate, institutional, and governmental actors
have political implications for the representation of marginalized communities: as
Berard notes, when it costs $10,000 to $18,000 a year for a membership to be
allowed to vote on proposed new emoji (or $7500 a year for a half vote), and when
these voting members must have a technical background, many viewpoints will be
excluded from the decision-making process. [29] This organization is now known as The New Humanitarian, and is a global,
digital only news outlet which provides field reporting on humanitarian
crises.
[30] Graduate students are especially prone to non-traditional work
schedules, in part because they are rarely afforded individual workspaces to serve
as “offices” and must do much of their work at home, in the library, or in a
third space. This mentality, developed during graduate study, often follows an
individual through their career.
Works Cited
Ahmed 2010 Ahmed, S. “Happy
Objects”, In M. Gregg and G. J. Seigworth (eds), The
Affect Theory Reader (2010), pp. 29-51.
Albawardi 2018 Albawardi, A. “The translingual digital practices of Saudi females on WhatsApp”, Discourse Context Media, 25 (2018): 68–77. doi:
10.1016/j.dcm.2018.03.009
Alshenqeeti 2016 Alshenqeeti, H. “Are emojis creating a new or old visual language for new
generations? A socio-semiotic study”, Advances in
Language and Literary Studies, 7 (2016): 56–69.
doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.6p.56
Bai et al. 2019 Bai, Q., Dan, Q., Mu, Z., and Yang, M.
“A Systematic Review of Emoji: Current Research and Future
Perspectives”, Frontiers in Psychology (2019).
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02221
Barbieri et al. 2019 Barbieri, F., Espinosa-Anke,
L., and Saggion, H. “Revealing patterns of Twitter emoji usage in
Barcelona and Madrid”, Artificial Intelligence
Research and Development, 288 (2016): 239–244.
doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-696-5-239
Berard 2018 Berard, B. “I second
that emoji: The standards, structures, and social production of emoji”,
First Monday, 23.9 (2018).
doi:10.5210/fm.v23i9.9381.
Bunce et al. 2018 Bunce, M., et al. “‘Our Newsroom in the Cloud’: Slack, Virtual Newsrooms and
Journalistic Practice”, New Media &
Society, 20.9 (Sept. 2018): 3381–3399.
doi:10.1177/1461444817748955.
Cahyaningtyas et al. 2017 Cahyaningtyas, R. M.,
Kusumaningrum, R., Sutikno, S, Riyanto, D. E., and IEEE. “Emotion
detection of tweets in Indonesian language using LDA and expression symbol
conversion”, 1st International Conference on Informatics and Computational
Sciences (ICICoS) (2017). doi: 10.1109/ICICOS.2017.8276371
Chairunnisa and Benedictus 2017 Chairunnisa, S.,
and Benedictus, A. “Analysis of emoji and emoticon usage in
interpersonal communication of Blackberry messenger and WhatsApp application
user”, International Journal of Social Sciences and
Management, 4 (2017): 120–126. doi: 10.3126/ijssm.v4i2.17173
Derks et al. 2008 Derks, D., Bos, A. E., and Von
Grumbkow, J. “Emoticons and online message
interpretation”, Social Science Computer Review,
26 (2008): 379–388. doi: 10.1177/0894439307311611
Fane 2017 Fane, J. “Using emoji as a
tool to support child wellbeing from a strengths-based approach”, Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social
Contexts, 21 (2017): 96–107. doi: 10.18793/lcj2017.21.08
Fane et al. 2018 Fane, J., MacDougall, C., Jovanovic,
J., Redmond, G., and Gibbs, L. “Exploring the use of emoji as a
visual research method for eliciting young children's voices in childhood
research”, Early Child Development and Care,
188 (2018): 359–374. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2016.1219730
Felbo et al. 2017 Felbo, B., Mislove, A., Søgaard, A.,
Rahwan, I., and Lehmann, S. “Using millions of emoji occurrences
to learn any-domain representations for detecting sentiment, emotion and
sarcasm”, Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,
Copenhagen, 2017. doi: 10.18653/v1/D17-1169
Ge and ACM 2019 Ge, J., and ACM. “Emoji sequence use in enacting personal identity”, Companion of the World
Wide Web Conference, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3308560.3316545
Gofine and Clark 2017 Gofine, M. and Clark, S. “Integration of Slack, a cloud-based team collaboration application,
into research coordination”, Journal of Innovation in
Health Informatics, 24(2) (2017). doi: 10.14236/jhi.v24i2.936
Gregg 2010 Gregg, M. “On Friday
Night Drinks: Workplace Affects in the Age of the Cubicle”. In M. Gregg and
G. J. Seigworth (eds), The Affect Theory Reader (2010),
pp. 250-268.
Gregg 2018 Gregg, M. Counterproductive: Time Management in the Knowledge Economy, Duke
University Press (2018).
Gregg and Seigworth 2010 Gregg, M. and Seigworth, G.
J. “An Inventory of Shimmers”. In M. Gregg and G.J.
Seigworth (eds), The Affect Theory Reader, (2010), pp.
1-25.
Hall and Pennington 2013 Hall, J. A., and Pennington, N.
“Self-monitoring, honesty, and cue use on Facebook: the
relationship with user extraversion and conscientiousness”, Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (2013): 1556–1564. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.001
Jibril and Abdullah 2013 Jibril, T. A., and Abdullah,
M. H. “Relevance of emoticons in computer-mediated communication
contexts: an overview”, Asian Social Science,
9 (2013):201. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n4p201
Kaye et al. 2016 Kaye, L. K., Wall, H. J., and Malone,
S. A. “‘Turn that frown upside-down’: a contextual account
of emoticon usage on different virtual platforms”, Computers in Human Behavior, 60 (2016): 463–467. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.088
Kim 1992 Kim, K. “A future direction
in standardizing international character codes — with a special reference to
ISO/IEC 10646 and Unicode”, Computer Standards &
Interfaces, 12.3 (1992): 209–221.
LeCompte and Chen 2017 LeCompte, T., and Chen, J.
“Sentiment analysis of tweets including emoji data”,
International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence,
2017. doi: 10.1109/CSCI.2017.137
Li et al. 2018 Li, W., Chen, Y., Hu, T., and Luo, J.
“Mining the relationship between emoji usage patterns and
personality”, Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social
Media, 2018.
Lin and Chen 2018 Lin, T.-J., and Chen, C.-H. “A preliminary study of the form and status of passionate affection
emoticons”, International Journal of Design,
12 (2018): 75–90.
López and Cap 2017 López, R. P., and Cap, F. “Did you ever read about frogs drinking coffee? investigating the
compositionality of multi-emoji expressions”, 8th Workshop on Computational
Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, 2017. doi:
10.18653/v1/W17-5215
Marengo et al. 2019 Marengo, D., Settanni, M., and
Giannotta, F. “Development and preliminary validation of an
image-based instrument to assess depressive symptoms”, Psychiatry Research, 279 (2019): 180–185. doi:
10.1016/j.psychres.2019.02.059
Na'aman et al. 2017 Na'aman, N., Provenza, H., and
Montoya, O. “Varying linguistic purposes of emoji in (twitter)
context”, Association for Computational Linguistics Conference, 2017. doi:
10.18653/v1/P17-3022
Papapanagiotou et al. 2018 Papapanagiotou, P.,
Davoust, A., Murray-Rust, D., Manataki, A., Van Kleek, M., Shadbolt, N., and
Robertson, D. “Social Machines for All”, Proceedings of
the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (2018):
1208–1212. doi: 10.5555/3237383.3237878
Park et al. 2014 Park, J., Baek, Y. M., and Cha, M.
“Cross-cultural comparison of nonverbal cues in emoticons on
Twitter: evidence from big data analysis”, Journal of
Communication, 64.2 (2014): 333–354. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12086
Perkel 2017 Perkel, J. “How
Scientists Use Slack”, Nature 541(7635)
(2017). doi:10.1038/541123a
Perry and Werner-Wilson 2011 Perry, M. S., and
Werner-Wilson, R. J. “Couples and computer-mediated
communication: a closer look at the affordances and use of the channel”,
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40
(2011): 120–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02099.x
Pettigrew 2009 Pettigrew, J. “Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal
relationships”, Marriage & Family Review, 45
(2009): 697–716. doi: 10.1080/01494920903224269
Porter et al. 2017 Porter, D., Campagnolo, A.,
Connelly, E. “VisColl: A New Collation Tool for Manuscript
Studies”. In H. Busch, F. Fischer, P. Sahle (eds), Codicology and Palaeography in the Digital Age 4, Norderstedt (2017), pp.
81-100.
Prada et al. 2018 Prada, M., Rodrigues, D. L., Garrido,
M. V., Lopes, D., Cavalheiro, B., and Gaspar, R. “Motives,
frequency and attitudes toward emoji and emoticon use”, Telematics and Informatics, 35 (2018): 1925–1934. doi:
10.1016/j.tele.2018.06.005
Riordan 2017 Riordan, M. A. “Emojis as tools for emotion work: communicating affect in text messages”,
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36 (2017):
549–567. doi: 10.1177/0261927X17704238
Ross 2019 Ross, S. M. “Slack It to
Me: Complementing LMS With Student-Centric Communications for the
Millennial/Post-Millennial Student”, Journal of
Marketing Education (2019). doi:10.1177/0273475319833113.
Sabin and Olive 2018 Sabin, J. and Olive, A. “Slack: Adopting Social-Networking Platforms for Active
Learning”, Political Science & Politics,
51(1) (2018): 183–189. doi: 10.1017/S1049096517001913
Sari et al. 2014 Sari, Y. A., Ratnasari, E. K.,
Mutrofin, S., and Arifin, A. Z. “User emotion identification in
Twitter using specific features: hashtag, emoji, emoticon, and adjective
term”, Jurnal Ilmu Komputer dan Informasi, 7
(2014): 18–23. doi: 10.21609/jiki.v7i1.252
Stark and Crawford 2015 Stark, L. and Crawford, K.
“The Conservatism of Emoji: Work, Affect, and
Communication”, Social Media + Society (2015).
doi:10.1177/2056305115604853.
Tossell et al. 2012 Tossell, C. C., Kortum, P.,
Shepard, C., Barg-Walkow, L. H., Rahmati, A., and Zhong, L. “A
longitudinal study of emoticon use in text messaging from smartphones”,
Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (2012): 659–663. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.012
Tuhkala and Kärkkäinen 2018 Tuhkala, A. and
Kärkkäinen, T. “Using Slack for computer-mediated communication
to support higher education students’ peer interactions during Master’s thesis
seminar”, Education and Information
Technologies, 23(6) (2018): 2379–2397. doi:
10.1007/s10639-018-9722-6
Wang 2019 Wang, D., Wang, H., Yu, M., Ashktorab, Z.,
“Slack Channels Ecology in Enterprises: How Employees
Collaborate Through Group Chat”. arXiv:1906.01756v2