What can “privacy,” “anonymity,” or “agency” mean for members of a collaborative workgroup? The presumption that groups are supposed to work together in harmony and close contact may seem to exclude the need for private spaces, the opportunity to make an anonymous contribution, or the capacity to have one's work done by an agent or surrogate. However, these cultural objects have served to shape CSCW and other network-based system applications.

Privacy, anonymity, and agency in the realm of the societal construction of computing applications have a number of common denominators. Each has special associations within the group level: individuals’ expectations for privacy, or the meanings they attach to a statement delivered under the cloak of anonymity, are affected by whether or not they are working in a group or team context. Roles that agents play in computing applications are also sensitive to group context; for instance, groups may set standards for the kinds of activities in which they can be utilized.

These three cultural objects have also been topics of frequent discussion within computer application design communities. “Social analogues,” system features that are intentionally linked by developers to specific cultural objects, have been formulated for each of the three. The question of whether a social analogue will be successful in maintaining a strong linkage with a certain cultural object (beyond the association that designers have attempted to make) has a number of complex dimensions.