Advertisement

Practice-Based Computing: Empirically Grounded Conceptualizations Derived from Design Case Studies

  • Volker WulfEmail author
  • Claudia Müller
  • Volkmar Pipek
  • David Randall
  • Markus Rohde
  • Gunnar Stevens
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)

Abstract

The introduction of IT has changed the way we live in many ways. Historically, it can even be argued that socially embedded applications of information technology challenge and change practices to an extent rarely seen before with any other type of technological artifacts. If these IT artifacts have strong and recurrent impacts on people’s lives, we need to reconsider design practice artifacts which allow for anticipating use practices and bring together inspirational creativity with evaluative methods.

Keywords

Access Control Social Practice Technology Acceptance Model Participatory Design Dementia Care 
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. Bentley, R., Hughes, J. A., Randall, D., Rodden, T., Sawyer, P., Shapiro, D., & Somerville, I. (1992). Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. In Proceedings of CSCW ’92: sharing perspectives (November 2–4, Toronto, Canada) (pp. 123–129). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blomberg, J., Suchman, L., & Trigg, R. (1996). Reflections on a work-oriented design project. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(3), 237–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumer, H. (1954). What’s wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 1954, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Braa, K., & Vidgen, R. (1999). Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brödner, P., Rohde, M., Stevens, G., Betz, M., & Wulf, V. (2015). Grounded design – A praxeological IS research perspective (Submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  9. Chi, E., Czerwinski, M., Millen, D., Randall, D., Stevens, G., Wulf, V., & Zimmermann, J. (2011). Transferability of research findings: Context-dependent or model-driven. CHI extended abstracts (pp. 651–654). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crabtree, A. (1998). Ethnography in participatory design. In Proceedings of the PDC’98 (pp. 93–105). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dachtera, J., Randall, D., & Wulf, V. (2014). Research on research: Design research at the margins: Academia, industry and end-users. In Proceedings of ACM conference on computer human interaction (CHI 2014) (pp. 713–722). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Disalvo, C., Clement, A., & Pipek, V. (2012). Communities: Participatory design for, with, and by communities. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), International handbook of participatory design (pp. 182–209). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Dittrich, Y. (2014). Software engineering beyond the project – Sustaining software ecosystems. Information and Software Technology, 56, 1436–1456. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dörner, C. (2010). Tailoring software infrastructures: Integration of end-user development and service-oriented architectures. Eul: Josef Eul Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  17. Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In Proceedings of ACM conference human factors in computing systems CHI 2006 (Montreal, Canada) (pp. 541–550). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  18. Draxler, S., Stevens, G., & Boden, A. (2015). Keeping the development environment up to date – A study of the situated practices of appropriating the eclipse IDE. In IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. IEEE explore (online resource).Google Scholar
  19. Ehn, P. (2008, October 01–04). Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008 (pp. 92–101). Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  20. Fitzpatrick, G., Balaam, M., Axelrod, L., Harris, E., McAllister, G., et al. (2010). Designing for Rehabilitation at Home. In Proceedings of workshop on Interactive Systems in Healthcare, Atlanta April (2010) (pp. 49–52). Workshop Paper.Google Scholar
  21. Floyd, C., Reisin F.-M., & Schmidt G. (1989). STEPS to software development with users. In 2nd European conference on software engineering (ESEC’89), Coventry, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Floyd, C., Mehl, W.-M., Resin, F.-M., Schmidt, G., & Wolf, G. (1991). Out of Scandinavia: Alternative approaches to software design and system development. Human–Computer Interaction, 4(4), 253–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forlizzi, J. (2008). The product ecology: Understanding social product use and supporting design culture. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
  24. Fuchs, L. (1998). Situation-oriented support of group awareness in CSCW systems. PhD Thesis, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Essen, Germany.Google Scholar
  25. Fuchs, L., Sohlenkamp, M., Genau, A., Pfeifer, A., Kahler, H., & Wulf, V. (1996). Transparenz in kooperativen Prozessen – Der Ereignisdienst in POLITeam. In H. Krcmar, H. Lewe, G. Schwabe (Hrsg.) Herausforderung Telekooperation (Proceedings der DCSCW’96, 30.9. – 2.10.1996 in Stuttgart-Hohenheim) (pp. 3–16). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of ACM conference on computer human interaction (CHI 2012) (pp. 937–946). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  28. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991). Design at work – Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Hanseth, O., & Lundberg, N. (2001). Designing work oriented infrastructures. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 10(3–4), 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1991). Collaborative activity and technological design: Task coordination in London underground control rooms. In Proceedings of the second European conference on computer supported cooperative work (ECSCW 1991) (pp. 65–80). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Henderson, A., & Kyng, M. (1991). There’s no place like home: Continuing design in use. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work – Cooperative design of computer artifacts (pp. 219–240). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design research in information systems. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hevner, A. R., March, S. G., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in: Information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  37. Hinrichs, J., Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2005). Context grabbing: Assigning metadata in large document collections. In Proceedings of the ninth European conference on computer supported cooperative work (ECSCW 2005) (pp. 367–386). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Hughes, J. A., Randall, D., & Shapiro, D. (1992). Faltering from ethnography to design. In Proceedings of CSCW ’92: sharing perspectives (November 2–4, Toronto, Canada) (pp. 115–122). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., & Anderson, H. (1995). The role of ethnography in interactive systems design. Interactions, 2(2), 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (Eds.). (2004). Social capital and information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.Google Scholar
  41. Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support knowledge sharing in communities: Towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology (JIT), 21(1), 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Karasti, H. (2001). Bridging work practice and system design: Integrating systemic analysis, appreciative intervention and practitioner participation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 10(2), 211–246. doi: 10.1023/A:1011239126617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Karasti, H., & Baker, K. S. (2004). Infrastructuring for the long-term: Ecological information management. In Proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2004. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265077.
  44. Karasti, H., & Syrjänen, A.-L. (2004). Artful infrastructuring in two cases of community PD. In Proceedings of the eighth conference on participatory design: Artful integration: Interweaving media, materials and practices (pp. 20–30). doi: 10.1145/1011870.1011874.
  45. Karsten, H., & Jones, M. (1998). The long and winding road: Collaborative IT and organisational change. In International conference on computer supported work (CSCW’98). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kensing, F., Simonsen, J., & Bodker, K. (1998). MUST: A method for participatory design. Human–Computer Interaction, 13(2), 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L. J. (2014). The turn to practice in HCI: Towards a research agenda. In Proceedings of CHI ’14 (pp. 3543–3552). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Lampson, B. (1974). Protection. ACM Operating Systems Review, 8, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ley, B., Pipek, V., Reuter, C., & Wiedenhoefer, T. (2012). Supporting improvisation work in inter-organizational crisis management. In Proceedings of ACM conference on computer human interaction (CHI 2012) (pp. 1529–1538). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  51. Malanowski, N., Özcivelek, R., & Cabrera, M. (2008). Active ageing and independent living services: The role of information and communication technology. JRC41496. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  52. Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People, 15(4), 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Millen, D. R. (2000). Rapid ethnography: Time deepening strategies for HCI field research. In Proceedings of the DIS ‘00 (pp. 280–286). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  54. Müller, C., Wan, L., & Hrg, D. (2010). Dealing with wandering: A case study on caregivers’ attitudes towards privacy and autonomy when reflecting the use of LBS. In Proceedings of GROUP conference 2010, November 7–10, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA. Google Scholar
  55. Müller, C., Neufeldt, C., Randall, D., & Wulf, V. (2012, May 05–10). ICT-Development in residential care settings: Sensitizing design to the life circumstances of the residents of a care home. In Proceedings of ACM-CHI 2012. Austin: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  56. Müller, C., Wan, L., & Wulf, V. (2013, May 5–8). Dealing with wandering in institutional care: Exploring the field. In 7th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (PervasiveHealth 2013) (pp. 101–104), Venice, Italy. Venice: EAI Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Ngwenyama, O. K. (1998). Groupware, social action and organizational emergence: On the process dynamics of computer mediated distributed work. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 8(4), 123–143.Google Scholar
  58. O’Connor, D., & Purves, B. (2009). Decision-making, personhood and dementia: Exploring the interface. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Ogonowski, C., Ley, B., Hess, J., Wan, L., & Wulf, V. (2013). Designing for the living room: Long-term user involvement in a living lab. In Proceedings of ACM conference on computer human interaction (CHI 2013) (pp. 1539–1548). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  60. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Orlikowski, W. J. (1996a). Evolving with notes: Organizational change around groupware technology. In C. Ciborra (Ed.), Groupware & teamwork (pp. 23–60). Chichester et al.: Wiley.Google Scholar
  62. Orlikowski, W. J. (1996b). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Orlikowski, W. J., & Hofman, J. D. (1997). An improvisational model for change management: The case of groupware technology. Sloan Management Review, (Winter), Cambridge, MIT, 11–21.Google Scholar
  64. Pipek, V. (2005). From tailoring to appropriation support: Negotiating groupware usage. Oulu: Faculty of Science, Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu.Google Scholar
  65. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (1999). A groupware’s life. In Proceedings of the sixth European conference on computer supported cooperative work (ECSCW ’99). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  66. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2003). Pruning the answer garden: Knowledge sharing in maintenance engineering. In Proceedings of the eighth European conference on computer supported cooperative work (ECSCW 2003) (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  67. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009, May). Infrastructuring: Towards an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association of Information System (JAIS), 10(5), 306–332.Google Scholar
  68. Piper, A. M., Campbell, R., & Hollan, J. D. (2010). Exploring the accessibility and appeal of surface computing for older adult health care support. In Proceeding of CHI 2010 (pp. 907–916). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  69. Ramírez, L. (2012). Practice-centered support for indoor navigation: Design of a ubicomp platform for firefighters, PhD thesis, Fakultät III Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wirtschaftsrecht, University of Siegen.Google Scholar
  70. Ramirez, L., Betz, M., Dyrks, T., Scholz, M., Gerwinski, J., & Wulf, V. (2012). Landmarke – An ad hoc deployable ubicomp infrastructure to support indoor navigation of firefighters. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (PUC), 16(8), 1025–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reichling, T., & Veith, M. (2005). Expertise sharing in a heterogeneous organizational environment. In Proceedings of the ninth European conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 325–345). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. Reichling, T., & Wulf, V. (2009). Expert recommender systems in practice: Evaluating semi-automatic profile generation. In Proceedings of ACM conference on computer human interaction (CHI 2009) (pp. 59–68). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  74. Reichling, T., Schubert, K., & Wulf, V. (2005). Matching human actors based on their texts: Design and evaluation of an instance of the expert finding framework. In Proceedings of GROUP 2005 (pp. 61–70). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  75. Reichling, T., Veith, M., & Wulf, V. (2007). Expert recommender: Designing for a network organization. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing (JCSCW), 16(4–5), 431–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rohde, M. (2007). Integrated organization and technology development (OTD) and the impact of socio-cultural concepts – A CSCW perspective. Datalogiske skrifter, University of Roskilde.Google Scholar
  77. Rohde, M., Stevens, G., Brödner, P., & Wulf, V. (2009). Towards a paradigmatic shift in IS: Designing for social practice. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2009). New York: ACM Press, Article 15.Google Scholar
  78. Saeed, S., Rohde, M., & Wulf, V. (2011). Analyzing political activists’ organization practices: Findings from a long term case study of the European social forum. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing (JCSCW), 20(4–5), 265–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schmidt, K. (2011). Cooperative work and coordinative practices. Contributions to the Conceptual Foundations of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), London u.a.Google Scholar
  80. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2012). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  81. Shen, H., & Dewan, P. (1992). Access control for collaborative environments. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW 2002) (pp. 51–58). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  82. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  83. Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2002). How to infrastructure. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media – Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 151–162). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  84. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stevens, G., & Wulf, V. (2002). A new dimension in access control: Studying maintenance engineering across organizational boundaries. In Proceedings of ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW 2002) (pp. 196–205). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stevens, G., & Wulf, V. (2009). Computer-supported access control. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (ToCHI), 16(3), Article 12.Google Scholar
  87. Stiemerling, O., & Wulf, V. (2000). Beyond “Yes and No” – Extending access control in groupware with awareness and negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(2000), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stiemerling, O., Wulf, V., & Rohde, M. (1998). Integrated organization and technology development – The case of the OrgTech-Project. In: Proceedings of concurrent engineering (CE 98) (181–187), July, 13–15, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  89. Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  90. Suchman, L. (1986). Plans and situated action: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Suchman, L. (2002). Located accountabilities in technology production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 91–105.Google Scholar
  92. Suchman, L., Blomberg, J., Orr, J. E., & Trigg, R. (1999). Reconstructing technologies as social practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 392–408. doi: 10.1177/00027649921955335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Svensson, M. S., & Sokoler, T. (2008). Ticket-to-talk-television: Designing for the circumstantial nature of everyday social interaction. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2008 (pp. S. 334–S. 343). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  94. Törpel, B., Pipek, V., & Rittenbruch, M. (2003). Creating heterogeneity – Evolving use of groupware in a network of freelancers. Special issue on evolving use of froupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing (JCSCW), 12(1–2), 381–409.Google Scholar
  95. Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 463–479. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005.
  96. Twidale, M. B. (2005). Over the shoulder learning: Supporting brief informal learning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(6), 505–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
  98. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540.Google Scholar
  99. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  100. Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wan, L., Müller, C., Wulf, V., & Randall, D. (2014). Addressing the subtleties in dementia care: Pre-study & evaluation of a GPS monitoring system. In Proceedings of ACM conference on computer human interaction (CHI 2014) (pp. 3987–3996). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  102. Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Wulf, V. (1997). Konfliktmanagement bei Groupware, Vieweg, Braunschweig und Wiesbaden 1997, Zugleich: Dissertation Universität Dortmund 1996.Google Scholar
  104. Wulf, V. (1999). Evolving cooperation when introducing groupware – A self-organization perspective. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 6(2), 55–75.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  105. Wulf, V. (2000). Exploration Environments: Supporting Users to Learn Groupware Functions. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 265–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wulf, V. (2009). Theorien sozialer Praktiken als zur Elemente zur Fundierung der Wirtschaftsinformatik. In J. Becker, H. Krcmar, & B. Niehaves (Hrsg.), Wissenschaftstheorie und Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 211–224). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  107. Wulf, V., & Rohde, M. (1995). Towards an integrated organization and technology development. In Proceedings DIS ‘95, symposium on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 55–65). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  108. Wulf, V., & Rohde, M. (1996). Reducing conflicts in Groupware: Metafunctions and their empirical evaluation. International Journal on Behaviour and Information Technology, 15(6), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wulf, V., Pipek, P., & Pfeifer, A. (2001). Resolving function-based conflicts in groupware systems. AI and Society, 15, 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wulf, V., Pipek, V., & Won, M. (2008). Component-based tailorability: Towards highly flexible software applications. International Journal on Human-Computer Studies (IJHCS), 66(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wulf, V., Rohde, M., Pipek, V., & Stevens, G. (2011). Engaging with practices: Design case studies as a research framework in CSCW. In Proceedings of ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW 2011) (pp. 505–512). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of research through design: Toward a formalization of a research approach. In ACMDIS 2010 (pp. 310–319). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volker Wulf
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Claudia Müller
    • 3
  • Volkmar Pipek
    • 1
  • David Randall
    • 1
  • Markus Rohde
    • 1
  • Gunnar Stevens
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Media and InformationUniversity of SiegenSiegenGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer FITSt. AugustinGermany
  3. 3.University of SiegenSiegenGermany

Personalised recommendations