4.3 Article

Videoconference Fatigue: A Conceptual Analysis

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042061

关键词

video call; Zoom; Skype; Cisco Webex; Microsoft Teams; Big Blue Button; exhaustion; COVID-19 pandemic; computer-mediated communication; face-to-face-communication

资金

  1. CYTEMEX project funded by the Free State of Thuringia, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article aims to clarify the concept of videoconference fatigue and presents a four-dimensional model to describe its causal factors. By analyzing personal factors, organizational factors, technological factors, and environmental factors, the empirical research on videoconference fatigue can be advanced.
Videoconferencing (VC) is a type of online meeting that allows two or more participants from different locations to engage in live multi-directional audio-visual communication and collaboration (e.g., via screen sharing). The COVID-19 pandemic has induced a boom in both private and professional videoconferencing in the early 2020s that elicited controversial public and academic debates about its pros and cons. One main concern has been the phenomenon of videoconference fatigue. The aim of this conceptual review article is to contribute to the conceptual clarification of VC fatigue. We use the popular and succinct label Zoom fatigue interchangeably with the more generic label videoconference fatigue and define it as the experience of fatigue during and/or after a videoconference, regardless of the specific VC system used. We followed a structured eight-phase process of conceptual analysis that led to a conceptual model of VC fatigue with four key causal dimensions: (1) personal factors, (2) organizational factors, (3) technological factors, and (4) environmental factors. We present this 4D model describing the respective dimensions with their sub-dimensions based on theories, available evidence, and media coverage. The 4D-model is meant to help researchers advance empirical research on videoconference fatigue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据