Skip to main content

Community Informatics Design in Action: Towards Operational Ways of Thinking in Order to Start a Design Process (Block 3)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Community Informatics Design Applied to Digital Social Systems

Part of the book series: Translational Systems Sciences ((TSS,volume 12))

  • 488 Accesses

Abstract

As we have previously seen, the field of science models (FOSM) provides the theoretical and practical foundations of a collective operational imagination process called community informatics design. It is nothing less than an exploratory voyage through several thinking and action modes relying on transdisciplinarity. We will now see that these thinking modes are a very concrete way of operationalizing the community informatics design thinking by seven thinking modes (Burnette 2009; Ranjan 2007) likely to help the uninitiated or social and communication science students start a design process. These seven thinking modes constitute an operational model that can intervene at different stages of the FOSM, a life cycle or a design project. Each thinking mode is articulated in several natural or specialized languages and takes into account a different aspect of the FOSM (foundations, theories, methodology or the several applications). Each contains characteristics that allow to provide specific information and knowledge appropriate to each of the instances, procedures or actions related to the FOSM. Concretely, it means that each thinking mode allows to operationalize the different users’/designers’ intentions, their behaviours, the norms, the architectures, the role distribution, the resources, the management modes, etc. These thinking modes conciliate material thinking modes (hard) and software (soft). Let us examine how these thinking modes allow to explore “imaginary territories” of an innovation culture suggested by the FOSM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engenstrom, Y. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory, in the series: Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and Practice (trans: Viertel, J.). Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of Communicative Action. (trans: McCarthy, T.). Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R. (1973). Toward a person-centered computing technology, in the Proceedings of the1973 Fall Joint Computer Conference. Atlanta, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R. (1996). Synergies and competition between life in cyberspace and face-to-face communities. Social Science Computer Review, 14(1), 50–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R. (1999). Can the “next generation internet” effectively support “ordinary citizens”? The Information Society, 15(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R. (2000). Social informatics: A new perspective on social research about information and communication technologies. Prometheus, 18(3), 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R. (2007). What is social informatics and why does it matter? Published by the Information Society: An International Journal, 23(4), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R., Kraemer, K. L., Allen, J. P., Bakos, Y., Gurbaxani, V., & Elliott, M. (2001). Transforming coordination: The promise and problems of information technology in coordination. In T. Malone, G. Olson, & J. Smith (Eds.), Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moles, A. A. (1981). Pensée rigoureuse et sciences du vague: du bon usage des mathématiques dans les sciences sociales. In Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie (pp. 269–287). (incomplete).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moles, A. A., & Jacobus, D. W. (1988). Design and immateriality: What of it in a post industrial society? Design Issues, 4, 25–32. (incomplete).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moles, A. A., & Rohmer, E. (1998). Psychosociologie de l’espace. Paris: Éditions L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucchielli, A. (2005). Étude des communications: approche par la contextualisation. Paris: A. Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucchielli, A. (2006). Étude des communications: Nouvelles approches. Paris: A. Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Webography

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Harvey, PL. (2017). Community Informatics Design in Action: Towards Operational Ways of Thinking in Order to Start a Design Process (Block 3). In: Community Informatics Design Applied to Digital Social Systems. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65373-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65373-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65372-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65373-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics