Skip to main content

Representing practice in cognitive science

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Agre, P., and Chapman, D. (1987a). What are plans for? Paper presented for the panel on Representing Plans and Goals, DARPA Planning Workshop, Santa Cruz, CA., MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Agre, P., and Chapman, D. (1987b). Pengi: An implementation of a theory of activity. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA.

  3. Allen, J. (1983). Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances. In M. Brady and R. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boden, M. (1973). The structure of intentions. Journal of Theory of Social Behavior 3:23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chapman, D., and Agre, P. (1986). Abstract reasoning as emergent from concrete activity. In M. Georgeoff and A. Lansky (Eds.), Reasoning about actions and plans: Proceedings of the 1986 workshop. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Collins, H. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Collins, H. (1987). Expert systems and the science of knowledge. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dennett, D. (1978). Brainstorms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Garfinkel, H., and Burns, S. (1979). Lecturing's work of talking introductory sociology, Department of Sociology, UCLA. To appear Ethnomethodological studies of work, Vol. II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., and Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2):131–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gumperz, J. (1982). The linguistic bases of communicative competence. In D. Tannen (Ed), Georgetown University roundtable on language and linguistics: Analyzing discourse: text and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jordan, B., and Fuller, N. (1974). On the non-fatal nature of trouble: Sense-making and trouble-managing in lingua franca talk. Semiotica 13:1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London and Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Livingston, E. (1978). Mathematicians' work. Paper presented in the session on Ethnomethodology: Studies of Work, Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden. To appear in Garfinkel, H., Ethnomethodological studies of work in the discovering sciences, Vol. II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lynch, M. (1981). Art and artifact in laboratory science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lynch, M., Livingston, E., and Garfinkel, H. (1983). Temporal order in laboratory work. In K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London and Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lynch, M., and Woolgar, S. (1988). Introduction: Sociological Orientations to representational practice in science. Human Studies 11(2–3):99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Miller, G., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Searle, J. (1979). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Suchmann, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Suchman, L., and Trigg, R. (in press). Constructing shared conceptual objects: A study of whiteboard practice. In J. Lave and S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Situation, occasion, and context in activity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  28. Tibbetts, P. (1988). Representation and the realist- constructionist controversy. Human Studies 11(2–3):117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59 (236):433–61.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weizenbaum, J. (1983). ELIZA: A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 25th Anniversary Issue 26(1):23–3 (reprinted from Communications of the ACM 29(1):36–45, January 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Winograd, T., and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Woolgar, S. (1983). Irony in the social study of science. In K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London and Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Woolgar, S. (1985). Why not a sociology of machines? The case of sociology and artificial intelligence. Sociology 19(4):557–572.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This paper and the work that it reports have benefited substantially from discussions with my collaborators Randy Trigg and Brigitte Jordan. For developing observations on the use of whiteboards I am indebted to Randy Trigg, John Tang and to members of the Interaction Analysis Group at Xerox PARC; Christina Allen, Stephanie Behrend, Sara Bly, Tom Finholt, George Goodman, Austin Henderson, Brigitte Jordan, Jane Laursen, Susan Newman, Janice Singer, and Debbie Tatar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suchman, L.A. Representing practice in cognitive science. Hum Stud 11, 305–325 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177307

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cognitive Science
  • Political Philosophy
  • Modern Philosophy