[Paper Review] What was Hybrid? A Systematic Review of Hybrid Collaboration and Meetings Research

Thomas Neumayr, Banu Saatçi+3 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Nov 11, 2021

Knowledge Management and Sharing20 citations

TL;DR

This systematic literature review synthesizes 62 key studies from ACM Digital Library (pre-2020) on hybrid collaboration and meetings (HCM), revealing inconsistent terminology, limited real-world validation, and a dominance of small-group, lab-based experiments. It establishes a taxonomy of HCM settings based on synchronicity, group size, and technology use, offering a foundational framework for designing equitable, effective post-pandemic HCM systems across diverse work contexts.

ABSTRACT

Interest in hybrid collaboration and meetings (HCM), where several co-located participants engage in coordinated work with remote participants, is gaining unprecedented momentum after the rapid shift in working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, while the interest is new, researchers have been exploring HCM phenomena for decades, albeit dispersed across diverse research traditions, using different terms, definitions, and frameworks. In this article, we present a systematic literature review of the contexts and tools of HCM in the ACM Digital Library. We obtained approximately 1,200 results, which were narrowed down to 62 key articles. We report on the terms, citations, venues, authors, domains, study types, and data of these publications and present a taxonomic overview based on their reported hybrid settings' actual characteristics. We discuss why the SLR resulted in a relatively small number of publications, and then as a corollary, discuss how some excluded high-profile publications flesh out the SLR findings to provide important additional concepts. The SLR itself covers the ACM until November 2019, so our discussion also includes relevant 2020 and 2021 publications. The end result is a baseline that researchers and designers can use in shaping the post-COVID-19 future of HCM systems.

Motivation & Objective

• To address the conceptual confusion in HCM research caused by inconsistent terminology such as 'distributed,' 'virtual,' 'remote,' and 'hybrid,' which are often used interchangeably or in isolated research traditions.
• To identify and classify the actual characteristics of hybrid collaboration and meeting settings reported in HCI and CSCW literature, focusing on context, tools, group size, and synchronicity.
• To provide a systematic, evidence-based taxonomy of HCM research to guide future system design and research, especially in the context of the post-COVID-19 hybrid work future.
• To highlight the gap between existing controlled studies and real-world hybrid work dynamics, where larger groups and complex coordination across multiple devices and applications are common.
• To extend the SLR findings with high-profile 2020–2021 publications to capture emerging insights and reinforce the relevance of pre-pandemic research for current and future HCM challenges.

Proposed method

• Conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) using the ACM Digital Library, applying 72 keywords including 'hybrid meetings,' 'virtual meetings,' 'computer-mediated communication,' and 'video-mediated communication' to retrieve relevant publications.
• Screened 1,209 results through title, abstract, and full-text analysis, narrowing to 62 high-quality, peer-reviewed studies that examine hybrid collaboration and meetings, regardless of whether authors explicitly used the term 'hybrid'.
• Classified selected studies based on research questions, methodologies (e.g., experimental, observational, design-based), and reported characteristics of HCM settings, such as group size, synchronicity, and technology use.
• Applied established SLR guidelines (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007) and adapted methods from recent HCI literature to ensure reproducibility and rigor in source selection and analysis.
• Extended the SLR with post-2019 publications to contextualize pre-pandemic findings and identify emerging themes relevant to the current hybrid work landscape.
• Developed a taxonomic overview of HCM settings based on empirical data from the 62 studies, focusing on dimensions like co-location, device diversity, and coordination modes (synchronous/asynchronous).

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 What terms, definitions, and frameworks are used to describe hybrid collaboration and meetings in HCI and CSCW literature, and how consistent is their usage across research traditions?
• RQ2 What are the dominant research venues, study types, and methodological approaches in HCM research, and how do they reflect the field’s maturity and scope?
• RQ3 What are the actual characteristics of hybrid settings reported in the literature—such as group size, synchronicity, number of locations, and tool usage—and how do they compare to real-world hybrid work environments?
• RQ4 Why is the number of publications on HCM relatively small despite decades of related research, and what factors may have contributed to the fragmentation of this research domain?
• RQ5 How do high-profile 2020–2021 publications complement or extend the findings of the pre-pandemic SLR, and what new insights do they offer for designing future HCM systems?

Key findings

• The literature on hybrid collaboration and meetings is highly fragmented, with researchers using a wide array of terms—such as 'distributed,' 'virtual,' 'remote,' and 'mediated'—without consistent alignment, leading to conceptual confusion.
• Despite decades of research, only 62 relevant studies were identified from the ACM Digital Library up to November 2019, indicating a surprisingly small body of work focused explicitly on HCM, even though the phenomenon has been studied under different labels.
• Most studies are experimental or lab-based, with group sizes typically around ten or fewer participants and only two locations, which contrasts sharply with real-world hybrid work involving larger, more complex teams.
• There is a notable lack of research on the social dynamics of hybrid meetings, such as in-group/out-group effects and collocation blindness, despite these being well-documented challenges in earlier work.
• The review identifies a critical gap in real-world, longitudinal studies of HCM, particularly in large-scale, naturally occurring settings, which limits the transferability of findings to actual workplace environments.
• Post-pandemic publications (2020–2021) reinforce and extend the SLR findings, confirming persistent challenges such as awareness mechanisms and social asymmetries, while also highlighting the growing urgency for system design that supports inclusivity and equitable participation.