Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 471–495 | Cite as

From human-centred to human-context centred approach: looking back over ‘the hills’, what has been gained and lost?

  • Lauge Baungaard RasmussenEmail author
Original paper

Abstract

The cornerstone of the human-centred tradition lies in two notions: socially useful production and human machine symbiosis. However, only the latter became in focus in the successive user-centred design approaches. The paper makes a critical ‘flash-back’ to various human centred design approaches since the 1970s. In addition, it explores the sustainability challenges facing the current situation and suggests that ‘human-centredness’ should be extended to ‘human-context centred’ approach in order to recognize the challenges of the sustainability. Finally, the paper discuss the possibilities to develop and use narrative and modelling simulation methods including both qualitative and quantitative tools in a combined approach to meet the challenges of sustainable development within such a human-context centred approach.

Keywords

Sustainability Science Contextual Design Sustainable Innovation Revenue Model Educational Challenge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander IF, Maiden N ( 2004) Scenarios, stories, use cases–through the systems development life-cycle. John Wiley & Sons, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballon P, Arbanowski S (2005) Business models in the future wireless world. In: Tafazoli R (ed) Technologies for the wireless future: the wireless world research forum book of visions, 2005. Wiley, UK, pp 90–112Google Scholar
  3. Bannon LJ (2000) Situating workplace studies within the human-computer interaction field. In: Uff P, Hindmarsh J, Heart C (eds) Workplace studies—recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge University press, UK, pp 230–241Google Scholar
  4. Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1998) Contextual design—defining customer-centered systems. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehm B (1988) The spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Comput 21(5):61–72Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu P (1998) Practical reason—on the theory of action. Polity press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Castells M (1996/2000) The information age: economy, society and culture, vol I. The rise of the network society, 2nd edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Charter M, Tischner U (eds) (2001) Sustainable solutions—developing products and services for the future. Greenleaf Publishing, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooke P, Morgan K (1993) The network paradigm: new departures in corporate and regional development. In: Environment and planning D: society and space, vol 11, pp 543–564Google Scholar
  10. Cooley M (1980/1987) Architect or bee? The human price of technology. Hogarth press, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper A (1999) The inmates are running the asylum: why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. SAMS, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett JM, Rasmussen LB, Rauner F (1991) Crossing the border. Springer, UK Google Scholar
  13. Crespi F (1987) Social action and the ambivalence of communication: a critique of Habermas’ theory. Eur J Commun 2(4):415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehn P (1988) Work oriented sedign of computer artifacts. Arbetslivscentrum, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  15. Erman K (2006) Reconciling communicative action with recognition: thickening the ‘inter’ of intersubjectivity. Philos Soc Criticism 32:377–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feenberg A (1996) Marcuse or habermas: two critiques of technology. Inquiry 39:45–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gasson S (2003) Human-centered vs. user-centered approaches to information system design. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 5(2):29–41Google Scholar
  18. Garibaldo F (2003) Clustering and networking in Italy: a critical reflection on Emilia-Romagno and Bologna. In: Brandt D (ed) Navigating innovations—Indo-European cross-cultural experiences, vol I. India Research Press, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrison DR, Anderson T (2003) E-learning in the 21th Century. Routledge Flamer, USGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelb MJ (1998) How to think like Leonardo da Vinci. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill KS (1996) The human-centred movement. The British context. In: AI & Society, vol 10(2), pp 109–117Google Scholar
  22. Granovetter M (1992) Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In: Nohria N, Eccles RG (eds) Networks and organizations: structure, form and action. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Habermas J, Lenhardt C, Nicholsen S (1990) Moral consciousness and communicatative action. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Heijden K (2004) Scenarios—the art of strategic conversation. Wiley, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. van der Heijden K, Bradfield R, Burt G, Cains G, Wright G (2002) The sixth sense. accelerating organizational learning with scenarios. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  26. Heron J, Reason P (2001) The practice of co-operative inquiry: research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research. Sage Publications, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Holtzblatt K, Wendell JB, Wood S (2005) Rapid contextual design—a how-to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Elsevier, USGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacobsen P (2004) Production of modularised product systems. In: IFAC-MIM conference on manufacturing, modelling, management and control, AthensGoogle Scholar
  29. Johannisson B (2000) Networking and entrepreneurial growth. In: Sexton DL, Landström H (eds) The blackwell handbook of entrepreneurship. Blackwell, UK, pp 368–386Google Scholar
  30. Loucopoulos P (2004) Evaluating scenarios by simulation. In: Alexander IF, Maiden N (eds) Scenarios, stories, use cases: through the system development life-cycle. Wiley, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. Medis D (1999) A contribution to the critique of Jürgen Habermas. WSWS: readers’ forum: the balkan war. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/hab-j27.shtml
  32. Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Miles G, Heppard KA, Miles RE, Snew G (2000) Entrepreneurial strategies – the critical role of top management. In: Meyer GD, Heppard KA (eds) Entrepreneurship as strategy—competing on the entrepreneurial edge. Sage Publications, London, pp 101–114Google Scholar
  34. Merchant C (1983) The death of nature—women, ecology and the scientific revolution. Harper and Roe Publishers, USGoogle Scholar
  35. Mintzberg H (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Prentice Hall, UKGoogle Scholar
  36. Moldaschl M (2000) Reflexivität, Zur Bestimmung und Anwendung der Kategorie in Forschung, Beratung and Gestaltung. Working papers no. 3 Dep. of Sociology, TU, MunichGoogle Scholar
  37. Mumford E (1983) Designing human systems. Manchester Business School, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  38. Nonaka I, Toyama R (2002) A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Ind Corp Change 11:995–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Netterstroem S, Rasmussen LB (2003) Development of small enterprises through networking: a case study from the Danish dairy sector. In: Brandt D (ed) Navigating innovations—Indo-European cross-cultural experiences. India Research Press, New Delhi, pp 133–148Google Scholar
  40. Noble D (1977) America by design—science, technology and the rise on corporate capitalism. Alfred A. Knofpf, USGoogle Scholar
  41. Noble D (1984) Forces of production—a social history of industrial automation. Alfred A. Knofpf, USGoogle Scholar
  42. Nussbaum MC (2000) Women and human development—the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, USGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD (2001) The DAC Guidelines—strategies for sustainable development. OECD Publication Service, FranceGoogle Scholar
  44. Oostindie H (2002) The integration of care activities on farms. In: van der Ploeg JD, Long A, Banks J (eds) Living countrysides: rural development processes in Europe: the state of the art. Koopmans, NLGoogle Scholar
  45. Ottesen B (2003) Centre for coast culture. Unpublished paper, Baaring, Funen, DKGoogle Scholar
  46. Pajnik M (2006) Feminist reflections on Habermas’s communicative action. Eur J Soc Theory 9(3):385–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ploeg JD van der, Long A, Banks J (2002) Living countrysides: rural development processes in europe: the state of the art. Koopmans, NLGoogle Scholar
  48. Polanyi M (1962) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press, USGoogle Scholar
  49. Raskin P, Swart RJ, Robinson J (2002) In: Proceedings of the 2002 Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change. Global Governance project, Amsterdam, Berlin, Potsdam and Oldenburg, 2004, pp 53–66Google Scholar
  50. Rasmussen LB (2003) Action research toolkit II: the scenario workshop. In: Brandt D (ed) Navigating innovations—indo-european cross-cultural experiences. India Research Press, New Delhi, pp 241–258Google Scholar
  51. Rasmussen LB (2004) Sustainable entrepreneurship and quality of work. In: Francesco G, Volker T (eds) Globalisation, company strategies and quality of working life in Europe. Peter Lang, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  52. Rasmussen LB (2005) The narrative aspect of scenario building—how story telling may give people a memory of the future. AI & Society 19:229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenbrock HH (1979) The redirection of technology. In: De Giorgio A, Roveda C (eds) Criteria for selecting appropriate technologies under different cultural, technical and social conditions. Pergamon press, New York, pp 7–13Google Scholar
  54. Rauner F, Rasmussen LB, Corbett JM (1988) The social shaping of technology and work: human centred computer integrated manufacturing systems. AI & Society, vol 2(2), pp 47–61Google Scholar
  55. Tukker A, Tischner U (eds) (2006) New business for old Europe. Greenleaf Publishing, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Manufacturing Engineering and ManagementTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations