Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 369–398 | Cite as

Collaboration and Trust in Healthcare Innovation: The eDiaMoND Case Study



This paper presents findings from an investigation into requirements for collaboration in e-Science in the context of eDiaMoND, a Grid-enabled prototype system intended in part to support breast cancer screening. Detailed studies based on ethnographic fieldwork reveal the importance of accountability and visibility of work for trust and for the various forms of ‘practical ethical action’ in which clinicians are seen to routinely engage in this setting. We discuss the implications of our findings, specifically for the prospect of using distributed screening to make more effective use of scarce clinical skills and, more generally, for realising the Grid’s potential for sharing data within and across institutions. Understanding how to afford trust and to provide adequate support for ethical concerns relating to the handling of sensitive data is a particular challenge for e-Health systems and for e-Science in general. Future e-Health and e-Science systems will need to be compatible with the ways in which trust is achieved, and practical ethical actions are realised and embedded within work practices.


collaboration trust healthcare grid breast-screening 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson R. (1994). Representations and requirements: The value of ethnography in systems design. Human-Computer Interaction 9: 151–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashcroft, R. (2003): Making Sense of the Guidelines on Sharing Personal Data. Presentation at Workshop on Ethical Issues in e-Science. All Hands Meeting 2003, Nottingham.Google Scholar
  3. Berg M., Goorman E. (1999). The contextual nature of medical information. International Journal of Medical Informatics 56(1–3):51–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady, M. and R. Highnam (1999): Mammographic Image Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Boseley, S. (2004): Breast Cancer; The Relentless Rise. January 15th, The Guardian.Google Scholar
  6. Caldas A. (2003). Are newsgroups extending “invisible colleges" into the digital infrastructure of science?. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12 (1): 43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cicourel A. (1990). The Integration of Distributed Knowledge in Collaborative Medical Diagnosis. In: Galegher J., Kraut R. and Egido C. (eds) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  8. Coopmans, C. (forthcoming): Making Mammograms Mobile: Suggestions for a Sociology of Data Mobility. Information, Communication and Society Google Scholar
  9. Crane D. (1972). Invisible Colleges. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Dweck, R. (2003): Sifting Through Standards. March 10th, Bio IT World.Google Scholar
  11. Foster, I. and C. Kesselman (eds.) (2004): The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  13. Geldman, A. (2002): NHS Staff: The Issue Explained. June 26th, The Guardian,,7991,460023,00.html
  14. Giorgini, P., F. Massacci, J. Mylopoulos and N. Zannone (2004): Requirements Engineering Meets Trust Management: Model, Methodology, and Reasoning. Technical Report DIT-04–016, Informatica e Telecomunicazioni, University of Trento.Google Scholar
  15. Goodwin C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96: 606–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartswood, M. and R. Procter (2000): Designing for Breakdowns and Repairs in Collaborative Work Settings. In B. Fields and P. Wright (eds.): Special Issue on Understanding Work and Designing Artefacts, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 91–120.Google Scholar
  17. Hartswood M., Procter R., Rouncefield M., Slack R. (2002). Performance Management in Breast Screening: A Case Study of Professional Vision and Ecologies of Practice. Journal of Cognition, Technology and Work 4(2): 91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartswood, M., R. Procter, M. Rouncefield and R. Slack (2003a): Cultures of Reading in Mammography. In D. Francis and S. Hester (eds.): Orders of Ordinary Action: Respecifying Sociological Knowledge. Ashgute Publishing, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  19. Hartswood, M., R. Procter, M. Rouncefield, R. Slack and J. Soutter (2003b): The Work of Reading Mammograms and the Implications for Computer-Aided Detection Systems. In Proceedings of the Seventh Medical Image Understanding and Analysis Conference. Sheffield, July, British Machine Vision Association, pp. 89–92.Google Scholar
  20. Hartswood M., Jirotka M., Procter R., Slack R., Voss A., Lloyd S. (2005). Working IT out in e-Science: Experiences of requirements capture in HealthGrid projects. In: Solomnides T , McClatchey R., Breton V., Legre Y., Nørager S. (eds) Proceedings of HealthGrid 2005. From Grid to Healthgrid. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Heath, C.C. and P. Luff (1996): Documents and Professional Practice: ‘Bad’ Organisational Reasons For ‘Good’ Clinical Records. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Co-Operative Work. November, Boston: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heath C.C., Luff P., Sanchez Svensson M. (2003). Technology and Medical Practices. Sociology of Health and Illness 25(3): 73–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinds, C. and C. Coopmans (2003): Screening Requirements (1) eDiaMoND. Technical Report.Google Scholar
  24. Hine, C. (ed.). New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding e-Science. Idea Group, Hershey, PA (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  25. Hughes, J., V. King, T. Rodden and H. Andersen (1994): Moving out From the Control Room: Ethnography in System Design. In Proceedings of CSCW’94. Chapel Hill, NC: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jirotka, M. (2003). Screening Evaluation Report. eDiaMoND Technical Report.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, S., M. Wilikens, P. Morris and M. Masera (2000): Trust Requirements in e-Business. Communications of the ACM, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 81–87.Google Scholar
  28. Luhmann, N. (2000): Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives. In D. Gambetta (ed.): Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations. Electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, Chapter 6, pp. 94–107.–107.pdfGoogle Scholar
  29. Moreau, L. S. Miles, C. A. Goble, M. Greenwood, V. Dialini, M. Addis, N. Alpdemir, R.␣Cawley, O. De Roure, J. Ferris, R. Gaizauskas, K. Glover, C. Greenhalgh, P. Li, X. Liu, P.␣Lord, V. Radenkovich, A. Roberts, A. Robinson, T. Rodden, M. Senger, N. Sharman, R.␣Stevens, B. Warboys, P. Watson, and C. Wroe (2003): On the Use of Agents in a BioInformatic Grid. In S. Lee, S. Sekuchi, S. Matsuoka and M. Sato (eds.): Proceedings of the Third IEEE/ACM Workshop on Agent Based Cluster and Grid Computing. Tokyo, Japan, pp.␣653–661Google Scholar
  30. Price D.J. de Solla (1963). Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  31. Power, D., E. Politou, M. Slaymaker, S. Harris and Simpson, A. (2004): A Relational Approach to the Capture of DICOM Files for Grid-enabled Medical Imaging Databases. To appear in ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Special track on Computer Applications in Healthcare.Google Scholar
  32. Power, D., M. Slaymaker, E. Politou and A. Simpson (2005): A Secure Wrapper for OGSA-DAI. In Proceedings of the European Grid Conference, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  33. Rabinow, P. (1986): Representations are Social Facts: Modernity and Post-modernity in Anthropology. In J. Clifford and G.E. Marcus (eds.): Writing Culture: The Politics and Poetics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sacks H. (1972). Notes on police assessment of moral character. In: Sudnow D. (eds) Studies in social interaction. Free Press, New York, pp. 280–93Google Scholar
  35. Schneier, B. (2000): Secrets & Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  36. Shapin, S. (1994): A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Soutter, J., E. Anderson, J.C. Campos, M. Hartswood, L. Khoo, R. Procter, R. Slack, L. Smart, P. Taylor and L. Wilkinson (2003): The Role of Computer Based Training in Mammography. Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group Annual Scientific Meeting, November, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  38. Tabar, L. and P.B. Dean (2001): Teaching Atlas of Mammography. 3rd edn. Thieme Medical Publishers, ISBN 0865779627/3136408039.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, J. (2001): Presentation given at UK e-Science Meeting. July, London.Google Scholar
  40. Tryfona T., Kiountouzis E., Poulymenakou A. (2001). Embedding security practices in contemporary information systems development approaches. Information Management and Computer Security 9: 183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van House N. A. (2002). Digital libraries and practices of trust: networked biodiversity information. Social Epistemology 16(1): 99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Voss, A., R. Slack, R. Procter, R. Williams, M. Hartswood and M. Rouncefield (2002): Dependability as Ordinary Action. In S. Anderson, S. Bologna and M. Felici (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (Safecomp), Catania, September 10–13th. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 2434, Springer-Verlag GmBh, pp. 32–43.Google Scholar
  43. Voss, A., R. Procter, R. Slack, M. Hartswood and M. Rouncefield (In press): Understanding and Supporting Dependability as Ordinary Action. In K. Clarke, G. Hardstone, M. Rouncefield and I. Sommerville (eds.): Trust in Technology: A Socio-Technical Systems Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Zuccala, A. (2005): Modeling the Invisible College. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Maryland: Silver Spring.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
    • 2
    • 2
    • 2
    • 1
    • 3
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Oxford University Computing LaboratoryOxfordUK
  2. 2.School of Informatics, University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Tanaka Business School, Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations