Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 177–190 | Cite as

Do categories have politics?

The language/action perspective reconsidered
  • Lucy Suchman
Article

Abstract

Drawing on writings within the CSCW community and on recent social theory, this paper proposes that the adoption of speech act theory as a foundation for system design carries with it an agenda of discipline and control over organization members' actions. I begin with a brief review of the language/action perspective introduced by Winograd, Flores and their colleagues, focusing in particular on the categorization of speakers' intent. I then turn to some observations on the politics of categorization and, with that framework as back-ground, consider the attempt, throughthe coordinator, to implement a technological system for intention-accounting within organizations. Finally, I suggest the implications of the analysis presented in the paper for the politics of CSCW systems design.

Key words

Coordination technologies organizational communications speech act theory systems design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agre, Philip. (1993): From high tech to human tech: on the sudden market for social studies of technology. In the proceedings of the workshopSocial science research, technical systems and cooperative work. Paris, France, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J.L. (1962):How To Do Things With Words, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bogen, David. (1991): Linguistic Forms and Social Obligations: A critique of the doctrine of literal expression in Searle. InJournal for the Theory of Social Behavior, vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 31–62.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowers, John. (1992): The Politics of Formalism. InContexts of Computer-Mediated Communication ed. M. Lea Hassocks: Harvester.Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, John and Chrucher, John. (1988): Local and Global Structuring of Computer-Mediated Communication. InProceedings of the ACM Conference in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Portland, OR, pp. 125–139.Google Scholar
  6. Bullen, Christine and Bennett, John. (1990): Learning from user experience with groupware. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 291–302.Google Scholar
  7. Duranti, Alessandro. (1991): Intentionality and Truth: An Ethnographic Critique. unpublished manuscript, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  8. Flores, Fernando, M. Graves, B. Hartfield and T. Wonograd. (1988): Computer Systems and the Design of Organizational Interaction. InACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, Special Issue on the Language/Action Perspective. vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 153–172.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, Michel. (1979):Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. Garfinkel, Harold and Sacks, Harvey. (1970): On Formal Structures of Practical Action. InTheoretical Sociology, McKinney and E. Tiryakian eds. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 337–366.Google Scholar
  11. Goodwin, Charles. (1981):Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie. (1992): Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.)Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–190.Google Scholar
  13. Haraway, Donna J. (1991): Science as Culture, Science Studies as Cultural Studies? Paper prepared for the volumeCultural Studies Now and in the Future, P. Treichler, C. Nelson, and L. Grossberg (eds.), in prep., presented at a conference on Disunity and Contextualism: New Directions in the Philosophy of Science Studies. Stanford University, March 31–April 1.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, B., G. Weaver, M. Olson and R. Dunham. (1986): Using a computer-based tool to support collaboration: A field experiment: InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Austin, TX, pp. 343–352.Google Scholar
  15. Levinson, S. (1983): Speech Act. Chapter 5 inPragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lynch, Michael. (1990): Pictures of Nothing? Visual Construals in Social Theory. Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August.Google Scholar
  17. Robinson, Mike and Bannon, Liam. (1991): Questioning Representations. InProceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 219–234.Google Scholar
  18. Sacks, Harvey. (1979): Hotrodder: A Revolutionary Category. InEveryda Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. G. Psathas, NY: Irvington, pp. 7–14.Google Scholar
  19. Sacks, Harvey and Schegloff, Emanuel. (1979): Two Preferences in the organization of references to persons in conversation and their interaction. InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. G. Psathas, New York: Irvington, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
  20. Schegloff, Emanuel (nd) To Searle on Conversation: A Note in Return. Prepared for a volume of essays in response to the work of John Searle, unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  21. Schegloff, Emanuel. (1972): Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating place. InStudies in Social Interaction, ed. D. Sudnow, New York: Free Press, pp. 75–119.Google Scholar
  22. Schegloff, Emanuel. (1982): Discourse as an Interactional Achievement. InAnalyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. D. Tannen, Georgetown Roudtable on Language & Linguistics, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
  23. Schegloff, Emanuel. (1988): Presequences and Indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation.In Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 12, pp. 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Suchman, Lucy. (1993): Technologies of Accountability: On Lizards and Aeroplanes. In: G. Button (ed.)Technology in Working Order: Studies in work, interaction and technology. London: Routledge, pp. 113–126.Google Scholar
  25. Winner, Langdon. (1986): Do Artefacts Have Politics? InThe Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 19–39.Google Scholar
  26. Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores. (1986):Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1958):Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Yates, JoAnn. (1989):Control through Communication. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucy Suchman
    • 1
  1. 1.Xerox Palo Alto Research CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations