Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 26 November 2022

Virtual Worlds Affordances for Organizationsfree

Virtual Worlds Affordances for Organizationsfree

  • Kathryn AtenKathryn AtenGraduate School of Business and Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School


Virtual work has become critical to competing in the global information economy for many organizations. Successfully working through technology across time and space, especially on collaborative tasks, however, remains challenging. Virtual work can lead to feelings of isolation, communication and coordination difficulties, and decreased innovation. Researchers attribute many of these challenges to a lack of common ground. Virtual worlds, one type of virtualization technology, offer a potentially promising solution.

Despite initial interest, organizational adoption of virtual worlds has been slower than researchers and proponents expected. The challenges of virtual work, however, remain, and research has identified virtual world technology affordances that can support virtual collaboration. Virtual world features such as multi-user voice and chat, persistence, avatars, and three-dimensional environment afford, in particular, social actions associated with successful collaboration. This suggests that the greatest value virtual worlds may offer to organizations is their potential to support virtual collaboration.

Organizational scholars increasingly use a technology affordance lens to examine how features of malleable communication technologies influence organizational behavior and outcomes. Technology affordances represent possibilities of action enabled by technology features or combinations of features. Particularly relevant to virtual world technology are social affordances—affordances of social mediating technologies that support users’ social and psychological needs. To be useful to organizations, there must be a match between virtual world technology affordances, organizational practices, and a technology frame or organizing vision. Recent studies suggest a growing appreciation of the influence of physical organizational spaces on individual and organizational outcomes and increasing awareness of the need for virtual intelligence in individuals. This appreciation provides a possible basis for an emerging organizing vision that, along with recent technology developments and societal comfort with virtual environments, may support wider organizational adoption of virtual worlds and other virtualization technologies.


  • Information Systems
  • Technology and Innovation Management

Virtual World Affordances for Collaboration in Organizations

To compete successfully in today’s global information economy organizations have turned increasingly to virtual work arrangements (Hardin, Fuller, & Davison, 2007), which promise benefits such as rapid innovation, lower costs, and greater work–life balance. Technological advances have transformed virtual work (Bjorn et al., 2014; Schmidt & Bannon, 2013), enabling knowledge workers to work anytime and anywhere (Yao et al., 2017). A report by Strategy Analytics predicts that the global mobile workforce will reach 1.75 billion in 2020 (up from 1.32 billion in 2014) and will account for 42.0% of the global workforce (Luk, 2015).

The difficulties of virtual work, however, are well documented (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Gilson, Maynard, Jones Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, 2015; Watson-Manheim, Chudoba, & Crowson, 2012). Research shows that virtual work can lead to isolation (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008), decreased interaction (Isacn & Naktiyok, 2005), and coordination costs (Daniels, Lamond, & Standen, 2001). The loss of a sense of community resulting from virtual work led some employees at IBM, an early adopter of such arrangements, to say that the company’s initials stood for “I’m by myself” (Johns & Gratton, 2013). Further, physical separation and division of labor can result in less natural collaboration, fewer serendipitous encounters and hallway conversations, and decreased innovation (Johns & Gratton, 2013). Activities that rely on social interaction such as creative collaboration are challenging for distributed employees working in virtual settings. As a result, when relying on virtual work, many organizations either decompose tasks within projects such that the work can be decoupled (Olson & Olson, 2013; Zigurs & Khazanchi, 2008) or fall back on face-to-face interaction for complicated or ambiguous tasks (NSF, 2008; Olson & Olson, 2000). In either case, some of the touted benefits of virtual work are forgone.

Some organizations have responded to these challenges by minimizing virtual work. Yahoo concluded that employees are more innovative and collaborative when they are co-located, and it curtailed its work-from-home policy in 2013, affecting 200 of the organization’s 12,000 employees (Tkaczyk, 2013). In 2013 Honeywell banned telework, as did Best Buy in 2016 (DePass, 2016). IBM made a similar decision in 2017 (Kessler, 2017).

Virtual worlds, and other virtualization technologies, offer promising solutions to some of the challenges that led these organizations to curtail virtual telework. In particular, virtual worlds may be able to support the creative collaboration and innovation that research shows are critical to many organizations (Gartner, 2019; Leadem & Entrepreneur, 2016; Montoya, Massey, & Lockwood, 2011; Watson-Manheim et al., 2012). Collaboration requires social interaction and common understanding (Clark, 1996; Clark & Brennan, 1991), which may be facilitated by virtualization technologies.

Virtual worlds are three-dimensional virtual environments that are experienced simultaneously by many users (Castronova, 2005) who interact and navigate through digital representations of themselves (avatars) to create and manipulate objects and interact in the shared space (Nah, Eschenbrenner, DeWester, & Park, 2010). Virtual worlds are predominantly social spaces, “defined by the joint, collaborative, and goal-directed activities of their users” (Koles & Nagy, 2014, p. 178). They afford individuals and organizations interactivity and engagement across time and space as well as the ability to incorporate 3D representations and spatial references (Dodgson, Gann & Phillips, 2013). These social activities help to create common ground (Sutcliffe, Gonzalez, Binder, & Nevarez, 2011).

Virtual worlds are a virtualization technology, a category encompassing virtual worlds, virtual gamespaces, and also virtual and augmented reality technologies. Virtual world gamespaces are defined by their gaming purpose with rules, levels, and objectives, whereas virtual worlds are focused on socialization and content creation (Spence, 2008). Virtual worlds users do play games in virtual space but engage in many other activities such as education, collaboration, support groups, and content creation as well.

Virtual worlds can be controlled with a keyboard and mouse and are displayed on a two-dimensional screen (Schmeil & Hasler, 2012), whereas virtual reality technologies fully immerse users in a digital environment usually using specialized equipment such as headsets and motion detectors. Thus, in virtual reality environments, users experience a first person perspective, seeing the world from inside the avatar, whereas in a virtual world users may view the virtual world from a third person perspective. Virtual worlds can be experienced simultaneously by many users, who can interact socially with other users, whereas virtual reality technology isolates users from others and distractions in the outside world to a greater extent than virtual worlds. Virtual reality environments may thus provide a more complete sense of immersion but may also lead to a sense of being isolated in a digital space. This isolation and lack of a third person, helicopter view in virtual reality has led some to suggest that virtual worlds may be better suited to multi-user coordination than virtual reality technologies (Burden, 2014).

Fairly recently, the use of virtual worlds has been increasing. The number of registered accounts in virtual worlds rose to an estimated 1.7 billion in 2011 (kZero, 2012). Buoyed by the increase in users, organizational interest in virtual worlds grew. In 2008, Harvard Business Review cited virtual worlds as one of the most promising technologies for business (Hemp, 2008). IBM, Coca Cola, and Nike were among the organizations that pioneered a presence in virtual worlds, using them for meetings, market research, and online conferences (Koles & Nagy, 2014). Despite initial interest, however, adoption of virtual worlds by organizations has been slower than trade experts and academics predicted. Studies show that 90% percent of corporate virtual world projects failed within 18 months (Gonsalves, 2008), and many organizations have abandoned their virtual world presence (Yoon & George, 2013). In 2009, and again in 2011, Gartner reported that virtual worlds lay at the bottom of a “trough of disillusionment” (Gartner, 2009, 2011). Recently, virtual worlds have been replaced in the annual Gartner report by virtual and augmented reality, which Gartner reports have similar potential but have also been slow to take off (Pettey, 2018). The need for solutions to the challenges presented by the global information economy, however, remains. Organizations are increasingly reliant on virtual work, require the results that come from collaboration, and face pressure for innovation.

This article explores this conundrum, addressing the question: Given the need for virtual work and the apparent benefits of virtual worlds, what prevents organizations from taking advantage of the affordances offered by virtual worlds? It reviews the trends in organizational adoption of virtual worlds and draws on studies of technology adoption and affordance, with a focus on social affordance, to discuss the barriers that may have slowed the adoption of virtual worlds. The article suggests that to be useful to organizations, there must be a match between virtual world technology affordance, organizational practices, and a value-constructing frame or organizing vision for the technology. Deeper appreciation of the influence of physical organizational spaces on individual and organizational outcomes and increasing awareness of the need for virtual intelligence among scholars and practitioners suggest a potential, emerging organizing vision.

Organizational Use of Virtual Worlds

Virtual worlds emerged in the 1990s as gaming platforms. Business organizations became interested in virtual worlds in the early 2000s when Linden Labs introduced Second Life as a virtual space and economy, rather than as a goal directed game. In the five years following its introduction, users created more than 8 million Second Life accounts (Jennings & Collins, 2007), building social, educational, and commercial venues and exchanging an in-world currency that could be converted to U.S. dollars. Early adopting organizations used virtual worlds for prototyping, demonstration and marketing, and education. By 2007, 50 well-known organizations, including Adidas Reebok, IBM, Cisco, and Disney, were engaged in Second Life (Rose, 2007). Universities created distance education programs and private worlds for simulation, experiential learning, and collaboration (Jennings & Collins, 2007). While prototyping and demonstration applications saw some success (e.g., Maxell, Aguliar, Monte, & Nolan, 2011; Tahmincioglu, 2008), neither marketing nor educational outcomes met expectations (Cyphert, Wurtz, & Duclos, 2013). Table 1 summarizes examples of early organizational use of virtual worlds.

Table 1. Early Organization Use of Virtual Worlds




Distance Education

Rangel College of Pharmacy, Texas A&M Health Science University

Offered an elective, case-based course for second- and third-year doctor of pharmacy students. Students and instructors met in Second Life to discuss cases focused on drug safety and effective communication with patients (see Veronin, Daniels, & Demps, 2012).


U.S. Navy Submarine Learning Center

Distributed instructors and students, represented by avatars, interacted with each other and accessed live tactical simulations. The schoolhouse included an orientation training trail, classroom, laboratory, study hall, and simulation range (see Aten & DiRenzo, 2014).


U.S. Navy Naval Undersea Warfare Center

Virtual world prototyping replaced physical models to visualize spatial command and control relationships.Collaborative virtual prototyping allowed program managers, technical experts, and members of the fleet to remotely collaborate and contribute to design a Virginia class attack center (see Maxell, Aguliar, Monte, & Nolan, 2011).



Global virtual team met in a virtual world to develop a software toolkit for building virtual worlds. Team met weekly to collaboratively develop software code in the virtual world (see Aten, Nardon, & Stanko, 2016).


Coca Cola

Coke created on online island within virtual world The site allowed Coca-Cola customers to buy clothing and accessories for their avatars using reward points culled from codes on Coke bottle caps (see Story, 2007).

Marketing and advertising were among early organizational applications of virtual worlds. Organizations sought to build brand recognition and to sell and market-test digital representations of products. They created spaces in which customers could interact with others and objects. These efforts, however, resulted in limited returns (Rose, 2007; Semuels, 2007). Virtual worlds failed to deliver the audience required for successful, traditional marketing efforts (Cyphert et al., 2013). Although 70,000 users logged on to Second Life at a given time, their avatars were spread over digital space. Reaching large numbers of users through traditional means such as billboards or storefronts was infeasible (Au, 2007). In 2007, Gartner predicted that by 2011 80% of Internet users and organizations would have an avatar (Gartner, 2007). While there were 1 billion virtual world users by 2011, users between the ages of 10 and 15 formed the largest segment (KZero, 2012), providing a limited market. Additionally, many users experienced a steep learning curve and failed to make return visits to virtual worlds (Hansen, 2009). Reports suggest that virtual world use has plateaued, with Second Life, one of the most publicized virtual worlds at about 500,000 users, though use of other virtualization technologies is likely to increase (Gartner, 2019).

Training and education was another early organizational application of virtual worlds (Berge, 2008), in particular in health care (for a review, see Ghanbarzadeh, Ghapanchi, Blumenstein, & Talaei-Khoei, 2014) and security and emergency services (e.g., Alexander, Brunyé, Sidman, & Weil, 2005; Aten & DiRenzo, 2014). The steep learning curve, however, affected educational use as well, with students reporting frustration with virtual world platforms (Sanchez, 2007; Thomassen & Rive, 2010). One longitudinal study of MBA students found that their acceptance of virtual worlds decreased over time even as their perceived self-efficacy in using the technology increased (Luse, Mennecke, & Triplett, 2013).

Early organizational interest in virtual worlds followed by slow organizational adoption could reflect overhype and disillusionment, which often occurs with emerging technologies. Alternatively, slow adoption could also reflect a failure of virtual worlds to provide organizational value. Scholars have explored the technology’s potential value to organizations using a technology affordance lens.

Technology Affordances of Virtual Worlds for Organizations

Organizational scholars increasingly use a technology affordance lens to examine how features of malleable communication technologies—technologies that enable a wide range of behaviors and the creation of additional tools—influence organizational behavior and outcomes (e.g., Faraj & Azad, 2012; Leonardi, 2011; Orlikowski, 2007; Treem & Leonardi, 2013). Technology affordances represent possibilities of action enabled by technology features or combinations of features. The concept of technology affordance builds on Gibson’s (1977, 2014) explication of how physical features in the environment suggest, or afford, possible actions (Hutchby, 2001). Norman (2004) elaborated the concept to include physical and visual features that suggest functionality and means of interaction with artifacts and computer systems. Subsequently, technology scholars have further elaborated the concept to include technology users’ goals and perceptions and the relational context (Faraj & Azad, 2012). From this relational perspective, technology affordances emerge and are realized through the enactment of relations between a technology and action given individuals’ goals and abilities (Faraj & Azad, 2012). The technology affordance concept thus links actors’ purposes with the capabilities afforded by technology within the constraints of social relationships. Particularly relevant to virtual world technology are social affordances: “the relationship between the properties of an object and the social characteristics of a group that enable particular kinds of interaction among members of that group” (Sutcliffe et al., 2011, p. 154). As Sutcliffe and colleagues (2011) explain, social affordances of social mediating technologies, such as virtual worlds, support users’ social and psychological needs.

Scholars have explored virtual worlds from many perspectives and definitions of virtual worlds, and the features and affordances they offer have evolved with the technology over time. Bell (2008) proposes a synthesis of previous definitions, focusing on three characteristics of virtual worlds: virtual worlds are synchronous, persistent, and represent users with an avatar. Virtual worlds allow real-time communication and interaction between multiple parties. They are persistent—they do not shut down when users leave, and they can’t be paused. And users are represented by a digital representation, or avatar, that has the ability to perform actions and is controlled by the user in real time. In addition to these, scholars highlight three-dimensional physicality as a key characteristic of virtual worlds (Chesney, Chuah, & Hoffmann, 2009; Hakonen & Bosch-Sijtsema, 2014; Meuller, Hutter, Fueller, Matzler, 2011). These characteristics afford social interactions and affect, suggesting that the greatest value virtual worlds may offer to organizations is their potential to support virtual collaboration (Dodgson et al., 2013; Kohler, Matzler, & Fuller, 2009; Tapscott & Williams, 2006).

Virtual World Affordances for Collaboration

Collaboration is a process of co-construction and mutual engagement (Lipponen, 2002) by interdependent collaborators (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010) working intentionally toward a shared goal. Co-construction requires communication and coordination. Innovative co-construction, in particular, requires that individuals draw on mutual knowledge to share ideas that are not fully formed (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Koppman & Gupta, 2014). Collaboration also requires mutual engagement, that is, engagement with the task (manifested by joint production) as well as engagement with other collaborators (manifested by attunement to others) (Bryan-Kinns, Healey, & Leach, 2007). Individuals who are mutually engaged in collaborative activity modify, contribute, and build upon each other’s contributions. Successful creative collaboration thus requires social interactions including, communication, coordination, and engagement.

Communication, Coordination, and Common Ground in Virtual Worlds

To coordinate and contribute to one another’s’ work, collaborators must make assumptions about what others know and how they will act on that knowledge (Enfield, 2000). This process, called grounding, allows individuals to achieve a state of mutual belief that they have reached an understanding sufficient to interact in concert (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Individuals achieve grounding by drawing on and creating common ground—the knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions they infer they share (Clark, 1996; Cramton, 2001; Monk, 2008).

In face-to-face settings, contextual and visual cues provide common ground, which facilitates mutual knowledge creation. A lack of common ground is a key barrier for virtual collaborators (Cramton, 2001; Monk, 2008). In an often-cited study, Cramton (2001) identified lack of common ground in virtual teams as the mutual knowledge problem. This problem contributes to the many challenges that make virtual collaboration difficult, including failure to communicate and retain contextual information, difficulties understanding the salience of information, differences in the speed of access to information, and misinterpretation of information (Bjørn & Ngwenyama, 2009; Cramton, 2001; Hinds & Mortensen, 2005).

Mutual knowledge supports situational awareness—knowing what is going on so that one can figure out what to do next—and is key to successful collaboration (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2012). Situational awareness provides context, which supports interpretations of communication and action, reduces coordination effort, better allows individuals to move between individual and shared activities, and allows team members to anticipate other’s actions (Gutwin, Greenberg, & Roseman, 1996). Virtual worlds can facilitate the situational awareness essential for collaboration (Montoya et al., 2011). The use of avatars and 3D objects fosters situational awareness by providing digitally represented physical cues and contextual information (Hakonen & Bosch-Sijtsema, 2014).

Like more traditional communication technologies, virtual worlds afford users the ability to interact across time and geographic distance. Participants can interact through proximal text-based discussion (i.e., chat) within a defined radius of the user. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) allows real-time speech communication. And private text-based communication (i.e., instant messaging) and group text allow synchronous or asynchronous interaction. These social affordances in combination with virtual worlds’ persistence, embodied representation, and 3D physicality allow users to interact in a manner more similar to interaction in the physical world than do traditional information communication technologies (Alahuta, Nordbäck. Sivunen, & Surakka, 2014).

In virtual worlds, visual human caricatures and the ability to create 3D representations can approximate the non-verbal communication cues that supplement verbal communication between co-located team members (Antonijevic, 2008). Users react similarly to avatar proximity as they do in real life (Bailenson, Blascovich, & Guadagno, 2008; Gillath, McCall, Shaver, & Blascovich, 2008; Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Cahnge, & Merget, 2007). Avatars play an important role in turn-taking and making meetings enjoyable (Sivunen & Hakonen, 2011), which can support collaboration.

Virtual worlds allow dispersed team members to call up and control project-relevant documents and communications channels and to share and manipulate them within the shared virtual space, simulating the real-world ability of co-located people to access and manipulate visually represented knowledge in the same time and place. Users can also communicate through successive manipulations of the environment. This form of communication, called stigmergy, occurs when one user modifies the environment and another user responds to the new environment at a later time (Bonabeau, Dorigo, & Theraulaz, 1999). Users can rearrange workspaces, edit and add to models, and react and respond to previously developed ideas or objects through nonverbal and often asynchcronous co-construction.

Creative Engagement in Virtual Worlds

Scholars have recently grouped technology affordances into categories including activity and affective affordances (see Shin, 2017; Zhao, Liu, Tang, & Zhu, 2013). Activity affordances afford particular behaviors or actions such as co-production of digital objects. Affective affordances produce an emotional state that may precede the choice of taking an action or implementing a behavior (Shin, 2017). Virtual worlds afford a sense of social presence, immersion, and trust (Bosch-Sijtsema & Haapamäki, 2014), which can support collaboration.

Multi-user synchronous interaction, persistence, embodied representation; and three-dimensional physicality afford users a feeling of social co-presence, that is, users have an active perception of themselves and each other in a space (Hakonen & Bosch-Sijtsema, 2014; Nowak & Biocca, 2003; Reeves & Read, 2009; Sallnas, 2005). Virtual co-presence is the feeling that others are in the same room and supports a feeling of shared context (Bente, Krämer, & Eschenburg, 2008; Ma & Agarwal, 2007; Schroeder et al., 2001; Zhao & Elesh, 2008), vital to successful collaboration and lacking in other types of technologies that support virtual work.

Dodgson et al. (2013) find that co-presence, adaptability of space, and virtual representations of people and artifacts differentiate virtual worlds from other information communication technologies and that virtual world technologies can support organizational learning. The sense of co-presence provides opportunities for co-creation of spaces for specific purposes with appropriate locational cues that help structure collaborative activities. The authors argue that virtual worlds are not antithetical or complementary to work but rather that by allowing “the freedom of action associated with play … [virtual worlds] can potentially provide a model for work by constructing a more fulfilling sense of self” (Dodgson et al., 2013, p. 14).

In virtual worlds the subject–object distinction that exists between people and information in computers disappears (Bricken, 1991), affording a sense of immersion or being present within a shared space with others. Immersion facilitates the development of interpersonal affinity, trust, and emotional involvement to a much greater degree than more traditional information communication technologies. Trust, in particular, is an important component of collaboration in virtual work (Javenpaa & Leidner, 1999). The use of avatars can affect users attitudes toward, and trust of, others. For example, users react similarly to avatar proximity as they do in real life (Bailenson, Blascovich, & Guadagno, 2008; Dotsch & Wigboldus, 2008; Gillath et al., 2008; Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Cahnge, & Merget, 2007). And research shows that use of avatars can increase cross-cultural understanding (Diehl & Prins, 2008) and influence sexism (Fox & Gailenson, 2009) and racism (Peña, Hancock, & Merola, 2009).

Virtual worlds may support engagement by affording forms of creative action that are impossible in the real world. Individuals working on innovation project teams in virtual worlds are able to alter their representations of self and shape the world around them with relative ease and at no cost. Users can modify their appearance and their surroundings. They can construct their environment absent space and resource limitations of the physical world and render the invisible visible and the abstract concrete by creating visual metaphors, maps, simulations, representations, and prototypes. Virtual worlds allow users to simulate potential and fanciful actions. Users can fly through space, build prototypes quickly, and experiment with different physical representations of themselves. Dodgson et al. (2013) find that virtual worlds afforded opportunities for playfulness, which helped IBM overcome difficulties of organizational learning.

Organizational Adoption of Virtual Worlds

Despite argued benefits, organizations have been slow to adopt virtual worlds. Initial interest waned, and many organizations abandoned their early efforts. Yoon and George (2013) examine why organizational adoption of virtual worlds has been slow through an empirical test of a model derived from the technology-organization-environment framework. They find that mimetic pressures drive organizational adoption of virtual worlds. Because many organizations are not successful at adopting virtual worlds, other organizations are not induced to adopt. Technological factors, perceived benefits, and compatibility do not have a significant effect on organizations’ intent to adopt virtual worlds, contrary to diffusion of innovation theory. These findings suggest the utility of a socio-cognitive perspective on technology adoption to understand organizational adoption of virtual worlds.

Socio-Cognitive Perspective on Technology Adoption

The socio-cognitive perspective on technology adoption seeks to explain the adoption processes of equivocal, emerging technologies. Equivocal technologies are accompanied by many often-conflicting interpretations and incomplete, exaggerated, and ambiguous information (Rosenberg, 1994). Such technologies make new activities possible, but specific applications are often unclear and their adoption iterative and experiential (Berente, Hansen, Pike, & Bateman, 2011; Dodgson et al., 2013; Swanson & Ramiller, 1997). Individuals and organizations must make sense of equivocal technologies, constructing their uses and value rather than just applying them (Berente et al., 2011; Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987; Weick, 1990). Technology frames are an important contributing factor to this sensemaking.

A technology frame is a repertoire of knowledge that individuals use to impart meaning and make sense of technologies (Davidson, 2002; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994). A technology frame guides individuals’ interpretations of “what a technology is and whether it does anything of value” (Kaplan & Tripsas, 2008, p. 293) and influences interpretations and assessments by shaping how individuals categorize emerging technologies relative to other technologies and also the performance criteria they use to assess technologies’ value (Acha, 2004; Kaplan & Tripsas, 2008). Incongruence and shifts between technology frames inhibit organizational adoption of technologies (Davidson, 2002; Orlikowski & Gash, 1994).

Research on technology commercialization suggests that proponents of equivocal technologies must construct a value logic that matches what is possible with what is valued (Kaplan & Murray, 2010; Maine & Garnsey, 2006; Maine, Lubik, & Garnsey, 2012, 2013). Because virtual worlds emerged from computer games, their connection with organizational efficiency and productivity is not immediately obvious (Dodgson et al., 2013). Increasing studies support the argument that cognitive frames influence the adoption of virtual worlds (Berente et al., 2011; Bosch-Sijtsema & Sivunen, 2013; Dodgson et al., 2013; Hakonen & Bosch-Sijtsema, 2014; Nardon & Aten, 2012).

Berente and colleagues (2011) draw on Swanson and Ramiller (1997) to define an organizing vision as “a reciprocal dynamic that forms a central mechanism of sensemaking around inchoate technologies” (p. 687). Shared cognitive schemas, or organizing visions, make information communication technology innovations more tractable (Berente et al., 2011; Swanson & Ramiller, 1997). Similar to a technology frame, an organizing vision guides the perspective of others and provides an interpretation that others can draw on to make sense of a technology. Berente and colleagues’ (2011) analysis of discourse around organizational adoption of virtual worlds finds active efforts at sensemakng consistent with many traditions. Individuals are making sense of virtual worlds through rational arguments emphasizing costs and benefits, through arguments anchored on experiences with other phenomena, through storytelling about personal experiences with the technology, through imitation of others, and based on standards. Concerns center on lack of control and present technological limitations of virtual worlds. Arguments in favor emphasize positive personal experiences. Assessments of the value of virtual worlds vary with the analogies individuals used to make sense of the technology. These findings are consistent with those of Nardon and Aten (2012), who identified interpretations of virtual worlds suggesting three mental categories: virtual worlds as a medium, virtual worlds as a place, and virtual worlds as an extension of reality associated with different criteria for assessing the organizational value of virtual worlds.

Competencies for Collaboration in Virtual Worlds

Although virtual worlds afford social actions and affect that support collaboration, research suggests that users will need to develop team- and technology-specific practices to fully take advantage of the opportunities the technology provides (Chudoba, Wynn, Lu, & Watson-Manheim, 2005; Hinds & Bailey, 2003). Examining the individual behaviors and skills needed to succeed in virtual workspaces, Makarius and Larson (2017) elaborate the concept of virtual intelligence, which they define as “the ability to recognize, direct, and maintain cognitive resources in a virtual work environment” (p. 168). They argue that virtual intelligence encompasses three competencies: recognizing, directing, and maintaining cognitive resources.

Virtual workers must be able to recognize that the virtual context is different from a traditional work situation and requires attention to different types of behaviors and stimuli as well as the ability to filter out distractions that are not typical in face-to-face settings (Makarius & Larson, 2017). For example, virtual workers may need to be able and willing to adapt their behavior for working in virtual environments, such as by articulating their thoughts and actions as they conduct work so that other team members can construct a rich visual representation of the action being taken and of the strategy and thought processes behind the action in the absence of cues that are often present in a face-to-face setting (Aten, Nardon, & Stanko, 2016). Virtual workers will need to use technology to conduct communication on multiple (often simultaneous) levels and in multiple timeframes.

Virtual workers who recognize that “virtuality inclines them toward higher level (more abstract) construals of their virtual co-workers will be better equipped to direct (or redirect) their cognitive resources to plan actions that are more appropriate to the virtual context” (Makarius & Larson, 2017, p. 169). Virtual workers may need to accept contextual ambiguity and adopt alternate perspectives and identities.

Finally, successful virtual workers need to be able to maintain cognitive resources through monitoring and updating representations and knowledge to accommodate changes in the plastic, virtual environment (Makarius & Larson, 2017). Virtual worlds can allow individuals to see, feel, and experience situations and ideas in ways they might not otherwise be able to experience them. They can model and visualize new products or walk into life-size prototypes and understand how different elements are spatially related to one another in a visceral way, which allows them to learn, communicate, and expand how they think.


While there has been a fair amount of organizational investment and experimentation with virtual worlds, adoption and results have been inconsistent. Nevertheless, the pressures that drove the initial organizational interest in virtual worlds remain. Organizations need to succeed at distributed work, require the results that come from collaboration, and face increasing pressure for innovation.

To make sense of new information technologies, organizations must develop cognitive schemas, skills, and practices that complement the technologies (Attewell, 1992). Virtual worlds are an equivocal, malleable technology not originally developed for business purposes but rather for game playing. Organizations have struggled to make sense of the technology and to create an organizing vision or frame that constructs the business value. The slow adoption of virtual worlds reflects these challenges.

The basis for long-term organizational value of virtual worlds is still being established through sensemaking. The use of virtual worlds for serious, focused organizational objectives will require an organizing vision that allows interpretation of the technology in a way that constructs organizational value, linking features and affordances with needs and competencies.

This article suggests that organizational understanding is evolving to focus on the value of virtual worlds, and similar virtualization technologies, as a social medium for collaborative activities. Social spaces provided by virtual worlds first drew participants and remain a key advantage, offering unique platforms for people to socialize, embrace novel experiences, and acquire new skills (Warr, 2008). The social affordances of virtual worlds, such as the ability to create and co-create malleable, digital representations of people and objects within a space, may be the most profound advantages of this and other virtualization technologies. These social affordances have the potential to provide unique benefits that other technologies do not and may form the basis for an organizing vision that will allow organizations to reap the benefits that research suggests virtual worlds may provide.

Virtualization technologies are still evolving. Recent developments, along with younger users’ familiarity with such technologies, are making organizational use more feasible. Virtual worlds are becoming increasingly easier to deploy and use. Further, within the larger context of virtualization technologies, virtual worlds are one component within a larger emerging experience ecosystem.

Research should continue to investigate how virtual worlds might be adapted for organizational use. Can a focused design process reflective of the experiences and lessons learned through past efforts support organizational success? How can emerging innovations affect the way virtual worlds can be deployed for organizational purposes in the near future? And are innovative management practices that might lead the way for more reliable and robust usages of virtual worlds technologies?

Research has recently highlighted the importance of the influence of physical space on organizational behavior and outcomes, showing that physical environments shape attitudes, interactions, and behaviors (Elsbach & Pratt, 2007; Zerella, von Treuer, & Albrecht, 2017). Work is now performed in more fragmented workplaces that activate different types of presence (Hofma, Avital, & Jensen, 2017). Research considering virtual space as a workplace and exploring the effects of digital representations on virtual workers is rare (Hyrkkänen, Nenonen, & Axtell, 2016). Virtual worlds present a fruitful ground for exploring and developing theories to explain and support the role of digital representations of physical space and their effects on virtual work.

Despite initial interest, organizational adoption of virtual worlds has been slower than researchers and proponents expected. The challenges of virtual work, however, remain, and research has identified virtual world technology affordances that can support virtual collaboration. Virtual worlds allow social interaction through multi-user, synchronous interaction, persistence, embodied representation, and three-dimensional physicality. The social interactions afforded by virtual worlds are associated with successful collaboration, suggesting that the greatest value virtual worlds may offer to organizations is their potential to support virtual collaboration.

This article reviewed trends in organizational adoption of virtual worlds drawing on studies of technology adoption and technology affordance to inform a discussion of the barriers that may have slowed organizational adoption of virtual worlds. It suggests that organizational adoption of virtual worlds requires an organizing vision that constructs value by matching the affordances provided by virtual world technology, organizational practices, and organizational needs. Scholars’ and business leaders’ growing appreciation of the influence of physical organizational spaces on individual and organizational outcomes and increasing awareness of the need for virtual intelligence provides a possible basis for an emerging organizing vision that, along with recent technology developments and societal comfort with virtual environments, may support wider organizational adoption of virtual worlds and other virtualization technologies.


  • Acha, V. (2004). Technology frames: The art of perspective and interpretation in strategy (No. 109). SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  • Alahuhta, P., Nordbäck, E., Sivunen, A., & Surakka, T. (2014). Fostering team creativity in virtual worlds. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 7(3), 1–22.
  • Alexander, A. L., Brunyé, T., Sidman, J., & Weil, S. A. (2005). From gaming to training: A review of studies on fidelity, immersion, presence, and buy-in and their effects on transfer in pc-based simulations and games. DARWARS Training Impact Group, 5, 1–14.
  • Antonijevic, S. (2008). From text to gesture online: A microethnographic analysis of nonverbal communication in the Second Life virtual environment. Information, Community and Society, 11(2), 221–238.
  • Aten, K., Nardon, L., & Stanko, T. (2016). Working out loud: Culture, technology, and communication practices of a global team in a virtual world. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
  • Attewell, P. (1992). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organization Science, 3(1), 1–19.
  • Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2008). Self representations in immersive virtual environments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(11), 2673–2690.
  • Bente, G., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Is there anybody out there? Analyzing the effects of embodiment and nonverbal behavior in avatar-mediated communication. In E. A. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B, Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 131–157). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Berente, N., Hansen, S., Pike, J. C., & Bateman, P. J. (2011). Arguing the value of virtual worlds: Patterns of discursive sensemaking of an innovative technology. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 685–709.
  • Bell, M. W. (2008). Toward a definition of “virtual worlds.” Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1).
  • Berge, Z. L. (2008). Multi-user virtual environments for education and training? A critical review of Second Life. Educational Technology, 48(3), 27–31.
  • Bjorn, P., Bardram, J., Avram, G., Bannon, L., Boden, A., Redmiles, D., & Wulf, V. (2014, February). Global software development in a CSCW perspective. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 301–304). Baltimore, MD: ACM.
  • Bjørn, P., & Ngwenyama, O. (2009). Virtual team collaboration: Building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence. Information Systems Journal, 19(3), 227–253.
  • Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., & Theraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm intelligence: From natural to artificial systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Bosch-Sijtsema, P. M., & Haapamäki, J. (2014). Perceived enablers of 3D virtual environments for virtual team learning and innovation. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 395–401.
  • Bosch-Sijtsema, P. M., & Sivunen, A. (2013). Professional virtual worlds supporting computer-mediated communication, collaboration, and learning in geographically distributed contexts. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(2), 160–175.
  • Bradner, E., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. (1999). The adoption and use of ‘Babble’: A field study of chat in the workplace. In ECSCW’99 (pp. 139–158). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Bricken, M. (1991). Virtual reality learning environments: Potentials and challenges. Computer Graphics, 25(3), 178–184.
  • Bryan-Kinns, N., Healey, P. G., & Leach, J. (2007, June). Exploring mutual engagement in creative collaborations. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity & cognition (pp. 223–232). Washington, DC: ACM.
  • Burden, D. (2014, August 1). 5 key differences between virtual worlds and virtual reality. Hybpergrid.
  • Castronova, E. (2005). Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Chesney, T., Chuah, S. H., & Hoffmann, R. (2009). Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 618–635.
  • Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson‐Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15(4), 279–306.
  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Communities, commonalities, and communication. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, 17, 324–355.
  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 13, 127–149.
  • Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.
  • Cyphert, D., Wurtz, M. S., & Duclos, L. K. (2013). Curricular implications of virtual world technology: A review of business applications. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(3), 339–360.
  • Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355–366.
  • Daniels, K., Lamond, D., & Standen, P. (2001). Teleworking: Frameworks for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), 1151–1185.
  • Davidson, E. J. (2002). Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), 329–358.
  • DeChurch, A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). Measuring shared team mental models: A meta-analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(1), 1.
  • DePass, D. (2016, October 21). Honeywell ends telecommuting option. Star Tribune.
  • Diehl, W. C., & Prins, E. (2008). Unintended outcomes in Second Life: Intercultural literacy and cultural identity in a virtual world. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(2), 101–118.
  • Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Phillips, N. (2013). Organizational learning and the technology of foolishness: The case of virtual worlds at IBM. Organization Science, 24(5), 1358–1376.
  • Dotsch, R., & Wigboldus, D. H. (2008). Virtual prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1194–1198.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2000). The theory of cultural logic: How individuals combine social intelligence with semiotics to create and maintain cultural meaning. Cultural Dynamics, 12(1), 35–64.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 84–110.
  • Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). The physical environment in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 181–224.
  • Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 237–258). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
  • Fox, J., & Bailenson, J. (2009). Virtual virgins and vamps: The effects of exposure to female characters’ sexualized appearance and gaze in an immersive virtual environment. Sex Roles, 61(3–4), 147–157.
  • Gartner Research. (2007). Gartner says 80% of active Internet users will have a “Second Life” in the virtual world by the end of 2011.
  • Gartner Research. (2009). Gartner: Virtual worlds in “trough of disillusionment,” 5–10 years from adoption.
  • Gartner Research. (2011). Gartner hype cycle report for 2011.
  • Gartner Research. (2019). Gartner says 100 million consumers will shop in augmented reality online and in-store by 2020.
  • Ghanbarzadeh, R., Ghapanchi, A. H., Blumenstein, M., & Talaei-Khoei, A. (2014). A decade of research on the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in health care: A systematic literature review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(2), e47.
  • Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geoxgraphic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
  • Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  • Gillath, O., McCall, C., Shaver, P. R., & Blascovich, J. (2008). What can virtual reality teach us about prosocial tendencies in real and virtual environments? Media Psychology, 11(2), 259–282.
  • Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337.
  • Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412–1421.
  • Gonsalves, A. (2008, May 16). Most business-launched virtual worlds fail, Gartner says. InformationWeek.
  • Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S., & Roseman, M. (1996). Workspace awareness in real-time distributed groupware: Framework, widgets, and evaluation. In People and computers XI (pp. 281–298). London, U.K.: Springer.
  • Hakonen, M., & Bosch-Sijtsema, P. M. (2014). Virtual worlds enabling distributed collaboration. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 7(3), 1–19.
  • Hansen, S. S. (2009). Brands inspiring creativity and transpiring meaning: An ethnographic exploration of virtual world play. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(2), 4–17.
  • Hardin, A. M., Fuller, M. A., & Davison, R. M. (2007). I know I can, but can we? Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams. Small Group Research, 38(1), 130–155.
  • Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.
  • Hemp, P. (2008). Getting real about virtual worlds. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 27–28.
  • Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632.
  • Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.
  • Hofma, C. C., Avital, M., & Jensen, T. B. (2017, December). Liquid workplaces: The potential implications of virtual reality on the workplace. In The 40th Information Systems Research Conference in Scandinavia, IRIS (Vol. 8, pp. 31–43).
  • Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.
  • Hyrkkänen, U., Nenonen, S., & Axtell, C. (2016, July). A tool for assessing user experience of fit of a virtual workplace. In International conference on virtual, augmented and mixed reality (pp. 22–34). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  • Iscan, O. F., & Naktiyok, A. (2005). Attitudes towards telecommuting: The Turkish case. Journal of Information Technology, 20(1), 52–63.
  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.
  • Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2007). Virtual or virtually U: Educational institutions in Second Life. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 180–186.
  • Johns, T., & Gratton, L. (2013). The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Business Review, 91(1), 66–73.
  • Kaplan, S., & Murray, F. (2010). Entrepreneurship and the construction of value in biotechnology. In Technology and organization: Essays in honour of Joan Woodward (pp. 107–147). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group.
  • Kaplan, S., & Tripsas, M. (2008). Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research Policy, 37(5), 790–805.
  • Kohler, T., Matzler, K., & Füller, J. (2009). Avatar-based innovation: Using virtual worlds for real-world innovation. Technovation, 29(6–7), 395–407.
  • Koles, B., & Nagy, P. (2014). Individual and professional development in the digital age: Towards a conceptual model of virtual worlds for organizations. Management Research Review, 37(3), 288–307.
  • Koles, B., & Nagy, P. (2014). Virtual worlds as digital workplaces: Conceptualizing the affordances of virtual worlds to expand the social and professional spheres in organizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(2), 175–195.
  • Koppman, S., & Gupta, A. (2014). Navigating the mutual knowledge problem: A comparative case study of distributed work. Information Technology & People, 27(1), 83–105.
  • kZero. (2012). Virtual world registered accounts reach 1.7bn in Q4 2011.
  • Lantz, A. (2001). Meetings in a distributed group of experts: Comparing face-to-face, chat and collaborative virtual environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(2), 111–117.
  • Leadem, R., & Entrepreneur, (2016). 10 incredible uses of virtual reality. Fortune.
  • Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.
  • Lipponen, L. (2002, January). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 72–81). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Boulder, CO: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Luk, G. (2015). Global mobile workforce forecast, 2015–2020. Strategy Analytics Report.
  • Luse, A., Mennecke, B., & Triplett, J. (2013). The changing nature of user attitudes toward virtual world technology: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1122–1132.
  • Ma, M., & Agarwal, R. (2007). Through a glass darkly: Information technology design, identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online communities. Information Systems Research, 18(1), 42–67.
  • Maine, E., & Garnsey, E. (2006). Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures. Research Policy, 35(3), 375–393.
  • Maine, E., Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2012). Process-based vs. product-based innovation: Value creation by nanotech ventures. Technovation, 32(3–4), 179–192.
  • Maine, E., Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2013). Value creation strategies for science-based business: A study of advanced materials ventures. Innovation, 15(1), 35–51.
  • Makarius, E. E., & Larson, B. Z. (2017). Changing the perspective of virtual work: Building virtual intelligence at the individual level. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(2), 159–178.
  • Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). How virtual teams use their virtual workspace to coordinate knowledge. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 3(1), 6.
  • Maxwell, D., Aguilar, S., Monte, P., & Nolan, D. (2011). Two navy virtual world collaboration applications: Rapid prototyping and concept of operations experimentation. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 4(2), 1–17.
  • Monk, A. (2008). Common ground in electronically mediated conversation. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 1(1), 1–50.
  • Montoya, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Lockwood, N. S. (2011). 3D collaborative virtual environments: Exploring the link between collaborative behaviors and team performance. Decision Sciences, 42(2), 451–476.
  • Mueller, J., Hutter, K., Fueller, J., & Matzler, K. (2011). Virtual worlds as knowledge management platform—A practice‐perspective. Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 479–501.
  • Nah, F. F. H., Eschenbrenner, B., DeWester, D., & Park, S. R. (2010). Impact of flow and brand equity in 3D virtual worlds. Journal of Database Management (JDM), 21(3), 69–89.
  • Nardon, L., & Aten, K. (2012). Valuing virtual worlds: The role of categorization in technology assessment. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(10), 772–796.
  • National Science Foundation. (2008). Beyond being there: A blueprint for advancing the design, development, and evaluation of virtual organizations. Arlington, VA: NSF.
  • Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  • Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481–494.
  • Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2), 139–178.
  • Olson, J., & Olson, L. (2013). Virtual team effectiveness and sequence of conditions. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (Online), 17(1), 1–12.
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.
  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12(2), 174–207.
  • Pettey, C. ( 2018, September 6) 3 reasons why vr and ar Are Slow to Take Off. Smarter with Gartner.
  • Peña, J., Hancock, J. T., & Merola, N. A. (2009). The priming effects of avatars in virtual settings. Communication Research, 36(6), 838–856.
  • Reeves, B., & Read, J. L. (2009). Total engagement: How games and virtual worlds are changing the way people work and businesses compete. Harvard Business Press.
  • Rose, F. (2007). How Madison Avenue is wasting millions on a deserted Second Life. Wired Magazine, 15(8), 15.
  • Rosenberg, C. S. (1994, December). Interface design for computer-controlled audio systems. Audio Engineering Society conference: 13th international conference: Computer-controlled sound systems. Audio Engineering Society.
  • Sallnäs, E. L. (2005). Effects of communication mode on social presence, virtual presence, and performance in collaborative virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 14(4), 434–449.
  • Sanchez, J. (2007). Second Life: An interactive qualitative analysis. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education international conference 2007 (pp. 1240–1243). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (2013). Constructing CSCW: The first quarter century. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 22(4–6), 345–372.
  • Schroeder, R., Steed, A., Axelsson, A. S., Heldal, I., Abelin, Å., Wideström, J., … & Slater, M. (2001). Collaborating in networked immersive spaces: As good as being there together? Computers & Graphics, 25(5), 781–788.
  • Semuels, A. (2007). Virtual marketers have second thoughts about Second Life. Los Angeles Times.
  • Shin, D. H. (2017). The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1826–1836.
  • Sivunen, A., & Hakonen, M. (2011). Review of virtual environment studies on social and group phenomena. Small Group Research, 42(4), 405–457.
  • Schmeil, A., & Hasler, B. S. (2012, May). Designing for effective collaboration experiences in virtual worlds. Seventh IASTED conference on human-computer interaction (HCI 2012) (pp. 14–16).
  • Spence, J. (2008). Demographics of virtual worlds. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 1(2), 1–46.
  • Story, L. (2007). Coke promotes itself in a new virtual world. The New York Times.
  • Sutcliffe, A. G., Gonzalez, V., Binder, J., & Nevarez, G. (2011). Social mediating technologies: Social affordances and functionalities. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(11), 1037–1065.
  • Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization Science, 8(5), 458–474.
  • Tahmincioglu, E. (2008, August 22). Business, and startups, in Second Life. BusinessWeek.
  • Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. T. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes the world. New York, NY: Portfolio.
  • Thomassen, A., & Rive, P. (2010). How to enable knowledge exchange in Second Life in design education? Learning, Media and Technology, 35(2), 155–169.
  • Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189.
  • Veronin, M. A., Daniels, L., & Demps, E. (2012). Pharmacy cases in Second Life: An elective course. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 3, 105–112.
  • Watson‐Manheim, M. B., Chudoba, K. M., & Crowston, K. (2012). Perceived discontinuities and constructed continuities in virtual work. Information Systems Journal, 22(1), 29–52.
  • Warr, W. A. (2008). Social software: Fun and games, or business tools? Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 591–604.
  • Weick, K. E. (1990). Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new technologies. In P. S. Goodman, L. S. Sproull, & Associates (Eds.), Technology and Organizations (pp. 1–44).
  • Yao, X., Li, X., Zhang, C., & Ling, H. (2017). Fueling virtual teams with creativity through composition of private and public workspaces. Association for Information Systems.
  • Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., & Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 115–121.
  • Yoon, T. E., & George, J. F. (2013). Why aren’t organizations adopting virtual worlds? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 772–790.
  • Zerella, S., von Treuer, K., & Albrecht, S. L. (2017). The influence of office layout features on employee perception of organizational culture. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 1–10.
  • Zhao, S., & Elesh, D. (2008). Copresence as ‘being with’ Social contact in online public domains. Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 565–583.
  • Zhao, Y., Liu, J., Tang, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). Conceptualizing perceived affordances in social media interaction design. Aslib Proceedings, 65(3), 289–303.
  • Zigurs, I., & Khazanchi, D. (2008). From profiles to patterns: A new view of task-technology fit. Information Systems Management, 25(1), 8–13.