Advertisement

Co-Realization: Toward a Principled Synthesis of Ethnomethodology and Participatory Design

  • Mark Hartswood
  • Rob Procter
  • Roger Slack
  • Alex Voß
  • Monika Büscher
  • Mark Rouncefield
  • Philippe Rouchy
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)

Abstract

This paper calls for a respecification of IT systems design and development practice as co-realization. Co-realization is an orientation to technology production that develops out of a principled synthesis of ethnomethodology and participatory design. It moves the locus of design and development activities into workplace settings where technologies will be used. Through examples drawn from case studies of IT projects, we show how co-realization, with its stress on design-in-use and the longitudinal involvement by IT professionals in the “lived work” of users, helps to create uniquely adequate, accountable solutions to the problems of IT-organizational integration.

Keywords

ethnomethodology participatory design design-in-use co-realization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1998) Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  2. Bowers J (1991) The Janus faces of design. In Bowers J, Benford S (eds.) Studies in Computer Supported Work. Elsevier Science, Burlington, MA, pp. 333–349.Google Scholar
  3. Buscher M, Mogensen P, Shapiro D (1996) Bricolage as a software culture. In Wagner I (ed.) Proceedings of the COSTA4 Workshop on Software Cultures Vienna, December, Technical University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  4. Büscher M, Shapiro D, Hartswood M, Procter R, Slack R, Voß A, Mogensen P (2002) Promises, premises and risks: Sharing responsibilities, working up trust and sustaining commitment in participatory design projects. In Binder T, Gregory J, Wagner I (eds.) PDC’2002 Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference. June, pp. 183–192.Google Scholar
  5. Button G (2000) The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies 21(4): 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cockburn A (2000) Balancing lightness with sufficiency. Available at http://members.aol.com/acockburn/papers/barelysufficient.htm. Accessed September 19, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Dittrich Y (1998) Developing a language for participation. Research Report 18/98, Department of Computer Science and Business Administration, University of Karlskrona/Ronneby. ISSN 1103–1581.Google Scholar
  8. Dittrich Y, Eriksèn, Hansson C (2002) PD in the wild; Evolving practices of design in use. In Proceedings of PDC 2002. Malmo, Sweden, 2002. CPSR, pp 124–134.Google Scholar
  9. Dourish P, Button G (1998) On “technomethodology”: Foundational relationships between ethnomethodology and system design. Human-Computer Interaction 13(4): 395–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds.) (1991) Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. Grudin J (1990) The computer reaches out. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’90). ACM, New York, pp. 261–268.Google Scholar
  13. Hartswood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Sharpe M (2000) Being there and doing IT in the workplace: A case study of a co-development approach in healthcare. In Cherkasky T, Greenbaum J, Mambrey P (eds.) Proceedings of the CPSR/IFIP WG 9.1 Participatory Design Conference. New York, December, pp. 96–105.Google Scholar
  14. Heath C, Luff P (2000) Technology in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Hughes J, O’Brien J, Rodden T, Rouncefield M. Ethnography, communication and support for design. In Heath C, Luff P (eds.) Workplace Studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 187–214.Google Scholar
  16. Kyng M (1995) Making representations work. Special issue of CACM 38(9):46–55.Google Scholar
  17. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2002) Interaction Design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Procter R, Williams R (1996) Beyond design: Social learning and CSCW-Some lessons from innovation studies. In Shapiro DS, Tauber MJ, Traunmüller R (eds.). The Design of CSCW and Groupware Systems. Elsevier Science, Burlington, MA, pp. 445–463.Google Scholar
  19. Randall D, Rouncefield, M, Hughes J (1995) Chalk and cheese: BPR and ethnomethodologically informed ethnography in CSCW. In Harmolin H, Sunblad Y, Schmidt, K (eds.) Proceedings of ECSCW ‘95, Stockholm. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 325–340.Google Scholar
  20. Schön DA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate Arena, Aldershot (revised 1991).Google Scholar
  21. Sharrock W (1974) On owning knowledge. In Turner R (ed.) Ethnomethodology.. Penguin Education, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  22. Suchman L (1995a) Representations of work. Editorial, special issue of CACM 38(9): 33–34.Google Scholar
  23. Suchman L (1995b) Making work visible. Special issue of CACM 38(9): 56–64.Google Scholar
  24. Suchman L (1999) Located accountabilities in technology production. Available at http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc039ls.html. Accessed September 21, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. Trigg R, Blomberg J, Suchman L (1999) Moving document collections online: The evolution of a shared repository. In: Bodker S, Kyng M, Schmidt K (eds.) Proceedings of ECSCW’99, Copenhagen. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 331–350.Google Scholar
  26. Turk D, France R, Rumpe B (2002) Limitations of agile software processes. In Proceedings of Third International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, Italy, May.Google Scholar
  27. Voss A, Procter R, Williams R (2000) Innovation in use: Interleaving day-to-day operation and systems development. In Cherkasky T, Greenbaum J, Mambrey P (eds.) Proceedings of the CPSR/IFIP WG 9.1 Participatory Design Conference. New York, December, pp. 192–201.Google Scholar
  28. Voss A, Procter R, Slack R, Hartswood M, Williams R, Rouncefield M (2001) Production management as ordinary action: An investigation of situated, resourceful action in production planning and control. In Levine J (ed.) Proceedings of 20th UK Planning and Scheduling (SIG) Workshop. Edinburgh, December, pp. 230–243.Google Scholar
  29. Williams R, Slack R, Stewart J (2000) Social learning in multimedia, final report to European commission, DGXII TSER. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  30. Woolgar S (1991) Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In Law J (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters. Routledge, London, pp. 58–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Hartswood
  • Rob Procter
  • Roger Slack
  • Alex Voß
  • Monika Büscher
  • Mark Rouncefield
  • Philippe Rouchy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations