, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 127–141 | Cite as

Politics of intervention in design: Feminist reflections on the Scandinavian tradition


How are we to understand advanced information technologies at a time where their use is becoming more and more widespread? To address this question, the author analyses the discourse of cooperative design. In doing this she draws on recent feminist thinking and her own experiences from a research project. She discusses the meaning of concepts such as experience, users, computers and politics in this discourse. She particularly stresses alternative ways of understanding the political nature of design and that multiple perspectives, including descriptive and historical ones, are relevant to both developing the technology and to deepening our understanding of the politics of intervention in design.


User-participation Scandinavian tradition Cooperative design Experience Interdisciplinarty in desgn Feminism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akrich, M. and Latour, B. (1992). “A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies.” In W. E. Bijker and J. Law (eds)Shaping Technology/Building Society. USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, M. (forthcoming) “Order(s) and Disorder(s): Of Protocols and Medical Practices.” In Marc Berg and Anne Marie Mol (eds)Differences in Medicine.Google Scholar
  3. Braverman, H. (1974).Labor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994).Designing Engineers. USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bødker, S. (1991).Through the Interface—A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bowker, G. (1994).Science on the Run. Information Management and Industrial Geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920–1940. USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bødker, S., Christiansen, E., Ehn, P. et al. (1993).The AT-Project-practical research in cooperative design. DAIMI PB-454. Computer Science Department, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  8. Ehn, P. (1988).Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Falköping: Arbetslivcentrum.Google Scholar
  9. Fink, H. (1990). “Naturens enhed og videnskabernes. Kulturforskning som naturforskning.” In H. Fink and K. Hastrup (eds.)Tanken om enhed i videnskaberne. Herning: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  10. Fujimura, J. (1992). “On Methods, Ontologies, and Representation in the Sociology of Science: Where do we stand?” in David Maines (ed)Social Organization and Social Process: Essays in Honor of Anselm L. Strauss. Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (1991).Design at Work. Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Grønbæk, K., Kyng, M. and Mogensen, P. (1993) “CSCW Challenges: Cooperative Design in Engineering Projects.” InCommunications of the ACM, June, 36(4).Google Scholar
  13. Haraway, D. (1991).Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Harding, S. (1986).The Science Question in Feminism. USA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ihde, D. (1979).Technics and Praxis. Dordrecht Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Jungk, R. and Müllert, N. (1987).Future Workshops: How to create desirable futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.Google Scholar
  17. Kjaer, A. and Markussen, R. (1989). “Demokrati og metode.” In Oluf Danielsen and Inger Lytje (es)Kvalitative metoder i systemudvikling og følgeforskning. Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Aarhus.Google Scholar
  18. Kyng, M. (1994).Making Representations Work. Paper presented at HICSS.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (1991). “Technology is society made durable.” In J. Law (ed.)A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Sociological Review Monograph 38. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Markussen, R. and Foged, B. (1984)Det fleksible køn. Tiderne Skifter: Viborg.Google Scholar
  21. Markussen, R. (1994a). “A historical perspective on work practices and technology.” In P. B. Andersen, B. Holmqvist and J. F. Jensen (eds.)The computer as medium. USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Markussen, R. (1994b). “Dilemmas in Cooperative Design.” In R. Trigg, S.I. Anderson and E.A. Dykstra-Ericson (Eds.)Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference. Chapel Hill NC USA.Google Scholar
  23. Markussen, R. (1995). “Constructing Easiness. Historical perspectives on work, computerization and women.” In Leigh Star (ed.)The Cultures of Computing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Ricoeur, P. (1988).Time and Narrative vol. 3. USA: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rouncefield, M., Hughes, J.A., Rodden, T and Viller, S. (1994). “Working with “Constant Interruption” CSCW and the Small Office.” InTranscending Boundaries. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Chapel Hill,NC USA. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (1993).Participatory Design. Principles and Practices. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Shapiro, D. (1994). “The Limits of Ethnography: Combining Social Sciences for CSCW.” InTranscending Boundaries. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Chapel Hill, NC USA. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  28. Scott, J. W. (1992). “Experience”, in Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott (eds.)Feminsts Theorize the Political. USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Star, L. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions. In J. Law (ed.)A Sociology of Mansters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Sociological Review Monograph 38, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Stengers, I. (1994).Metamorphoses of Science. Feminism and Shifts of Paradigms. Working Paper 7. Feminist Research Network On—Gender-Nature—Culture. Odense. Odense University.Google Scholar
  31. Suchman, L. (1994). “Working Relations of Technology Production and Use.”. InThe Journal of CSCW No. 2. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, R. (1983).Keywords New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhus NDenmark

Personalised recommendations