Studying Technologies in Practice: “Bounding Practices” When Investigating Socially Embedded Technologies

Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)

Abstract

The idea of socially embedded technologies (SET) constitutes a new approach into ICT research, one which has emerged from the European communities of research on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). SET is based upon the fundamental assumption that we need new ways to conceptualize research on design, which takes into account peoples’ social practices without limiting the human interaction to an individual computer-user relation. People and practices are much more than their relationship with a technology, and thus the concept of “user” is problematic. We see ourselves as researchers who embrace the new agendas of SET, and in this chapter we will then explain approach and suggest ways for thinking differently about design. When studying technologies in practice, we ground our work within the CSCW tradition for workplace studies (Luff P, Hindmarch J et al (eds) Workplace studies: recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000; Randall D, Harper R et al, Fieldwork for design: theory and practice. Springer, London, 2007). In recent years, we have conducted research in the healthcare arena, studying patient tracking and triage systems in emergency departments (Bjørn P, Balka E, Health care categories have politics too: unpacking the managerial agendas of electronic triage systems. In: ECSCW 2007: proceedings of the tenth European conference on computer supported cooperative work. Springer, Limerick, 2007; Bjørn P, Burgoyne S et al, Eur J Inf Syst 18: 428–441, 2009; Bjørn P, Hertzum M, Comput Supported Coop Work (CSCW): Int J 20(1): 93), investigating the introduction of electronic medical records in primary and acute care settings (Boulus N, Managing the gradual transition from paper to electronic patient records (EPR). Master, University of Oslo, 2004; Boulus N, Sociotechnical changes brought about by electronic medical record. In: American conference on information systems, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009; Boulus N, A journey into the hidden lives of electronic medical records (EMRs): Action research in the making. School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, 2010; Boulus N, Bjørn P, Constructing technology-in-use practices: EPR-adaptation in Canada and Norway. In: Third international conference information technology in health care: socio-technical approaches. IOS Press, Sidney, 2007; Boulus N, Bjørn P, Int J Med Inform 79(6): 97–108, 2008), as well as studying the practices of monitoring patients with heart failure in a tele-monitoring setup (Andersen T, Bjørn P, et al, Int J Med Inform 80(8): e112, 2010). We believe the healthcare arena to be a perspicuous setting for studying technology as socially embedded since it covers heterogeneous work practices, varying technical competencies and complex organizational arrangements. We have conducted both single-site and comparative studies (Boulus N, Bjørn P, Constructing technology-in-use practices: EPR-adaptation in Canada and Norway. In: Third international conference information technology in health care: socio-technical approaches. IOS Press, Sidney, 2007; Balka E. Bjørn P, et al, Steps towards a typology for health informatics. In: Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW). ACM, San Diego, 2008), and all of this work took place in Canada, Norway, or Denmark. In each of these studies, we applied ethnographic methods to examine the collaborative and complex practices of the particular site, with the aim of developing theoretical concepts useful for describing and articulating practices while informing the design of technologies that support the local and situated practices (Schmidt K, The critical role of workplace studies in CSCW. In: Heath C, Hindmarsh J, Luff P (eds), Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998). More recently, we have started to reflect on what these types of engagements mean for research and for practice, with the aim of continuously sharpening our research practices (Bjørn P, Boulus N, Action Res J 9(3): 282–302, 2011; Boulus-Rødje N, Action research as a network: collective production of roles and interventions. In: proceedings of the 20th European conference on information systems (ECIS). ESADE, Barcelona, 2012; Boulus-Rødje submitted).

References

  1. Andersen, T., Bjørn, P., et al. (2010). Designing for collaborative interpretation in telemonitoring: Re-introducing patients as diagnostic agents. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(8), e112. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balka, E., Bjørn, P., et al. (2008). Steps towards a typology for health informatics. In Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW). San Diego: ACM.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (1996). Meeting the universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 161–194). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardram, J., & Bossen, C. (2005). A web of coordinative artefacts: Collaborative work in a hospital ward. Sanible Island: ACM Group.Google Scholar
  5. Bentley, R., Hughes, J., et al. (1992). Ethnographically-informed system design for air traffic control. In Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bjørn, P. (2012). Bounding practice: How people act in sociomaterial practices. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
  7. Bjørn, P., & Balka, E. (2007). Health care categories have politics too: Unpacking the managerial agendas of electronic triage systems. In ECSCW 2007: Proceedings of the tenth European conference on computer supported cooperative work. Limerick: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bjørn, P., & Boulus, N. (2011). Dissenting in reflective conversations: Critical components of doing action research. Action Research Journal, 9(3), 282–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjørn, P., & Hertzum, M. (2011). Artefactual multiplicity: A study of emergency-department whiteboards. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 20(1), 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjørn, P., & Østerlund, C. (2014). Sociomaterial-design: Bounding technologies in practice. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bjørn, P., Burgoyne, S., et al. (2009). Boundary factors and contextual contingencies: Configuring electronic templates for health care professionals. European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 428–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., et al. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 123–155). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.Google Scholar
  13. Boulus, N. (2004). Managing the gradual transition from paper to electronic patient records (EPR). Master, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  14. Boulus, N. (2009). Sociotechnical changes brought about by electronic medical record. In Americas conference on information systems, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Boulus, N. (2010). A journey into the hidden lives of electronic medical records (EMRs): Action research in the making. Vancouver: School of Communication, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  16. Boulus, N., & Bjørn, P. (2007). Constructing technology-in-use practices: EPR-adaptation in Canada and Norway. In Third international conference information technology in health care: Socio-technical approaches. Sidney: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  17. Boulus, N., & Bjørn, P. (2008). A cross-case analysis of technology-in-use practices: EPR-adaptation in Canada and Norway. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(6), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boulus-Rødje, N. (2012). Action research as a network: Collective production of roles and interventions. In Proceedings of the 20th European conference on information systems (ECIS). Barcelona: ESADE.Google Scholar
  19. Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In Computer human interaction (CHI) (pp. 541–550). Montreal: ACM.Google Scholar
  20. Dourish, P., & Bly, S. (1992). Portholes: Supporting awareness in a distributed work group. In Computer human interaction (CHI) (pp. 541–547). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  21. Grudin, J., & Grinter, R. (1995). Ethnography and design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 3, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grudin, J. (2004). Crossing the divide. ACM transactions on human-computer interaction. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 11, 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haraway, D. (1987). Donna Haraway reads “the national geographic” on primates. youTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLN2ToEIlwM
  25. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Associations Books.Google Scholar
  26. Hartswood, M., Proctor, R., et al. (2003). Making a case in medical work: Implications for electronic medical record. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 12(3), 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hughes, J., Randall, D., et al. (1992). Faltering from ethnography to design. In Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) (pp. 115–122). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hughes, J., King, V., et al. (1995). The role of ethnography in interactive system design. Interactions, 2(2), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, M. (2013). A matter of life and death: Exploring conceptualizations of sociomateriality in the context of critical care. MIS Quarterly Special Issue on Sociomateriality, 38(3), 895–925.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess is social science research. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Leonardi, P., Nardi, B., et al. (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luff, P., Hindmarch, J., et al. (Eds.). (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Møller, N. H., & Bjørn, P. (2011). Layers in sorting practices: Sorting out patients with potential cancer. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 20, 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Orlikowski, W. (1992). Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. In Conference on computer supported cooperative work. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  37. Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(Special Issue), 447–473.Google Scholar
  39. Randall, D., Harper, R., et al. (2007). Fieldwork for design: Theory and practice. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt, K. (1998). The critical role of workplace studies in CSCW. In C. Heath, J. Hindmarsh, & P. Luff (Eds.), Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schmidt, K. (2009). Divided by a common acronym: On the fragmentation of CSCW (European conference on computer supported cooperative work (ECSCW)). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 1(1–2), 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Suchman, L. (1994). Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 2, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Svensson, M. S., Heath, C., et al. (2007). Instrumental action: The timely exchange of implements during surgical operation. In European conference on computer-supported cooperative work (ECSCW). Limerick: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Winograd, T. (1994). Categories, disciplines, and social coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 2, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wulf, V., Rohde, M., et al. (2011). Engaging with practices: Design case studies as a research framework in CSCW. In Computer supported cooperative work CSCW (pp. 505–512). Hangzhou: ACM.Google Scholar
  47. Yamashita, N., Hirata, K., et al. (2008). Impact of seating positions on group video communication. In Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) conference (pp. 177–186). San Diego: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technologies in Practice Research GroupIT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations