Advertisement

Methods That Matter in Digital Design Research

  • Christina Mörtberg
  • Tone Bratteteig
  • Ina Wagner
  • Dagny Stuedahl
  • Andrew Morrison
Chapter
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)

Abstract

Theories and analytical perspectives are linked to methods. The discussion of the methods used to capture the complexities of practices with a focus on social, cultural and economic layers (Jordan and Henderson 1994; Wagner 1994; Sjöberg 1996; Newman 1998) represents an important resource for a discussion of designers’ interpretative work with both traditional and new experimental methods. In previous chapters we have described our collaborative and multidisciplinary perspectives that are also mirrored in the methods we use in the exploration of practices. These practices are technical, organizational, knowledge-based and socio-cultural. Our aim is to explore and maintain the complexity in design as a mix of all of these.

Keywords

Mobile Phone Design Space Digital Medium Mobile Telephone Design Idea 
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. Alvesson M., & Sköldberg K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Bardram, J., Bossen, C., Lykke-Olesen, A., Nielsen, R., & Halskov-Madsen, K. (2002).Virtual video prototyping of pervasive healthcare systems. In B. Verplank, A. Sutcliffe, W. Mackay, J. Amowitz & W. Gaver (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ’02), London, England (pp. 167–177). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  3. Bauman Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, E., Mörtberg, C., & Jansson, M. (2005) Emphasizing technology: Sociotechnical implications. Information Technology and People, 18(4), 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bermann, T. (1983): Ansattes kunnskap og læring under innføring av EDB, med bibliotek som eksempel (In Norwegian: Employees’ knowledge and learning when introducing EDP, exemplified with libraries). LOFIB Læringsorienterte forsøk i bibliotek Report series. Oslo: Work Research Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Bermann, T., & Thoresen, K. (1988). Can networks make an organization? In I. Greif (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW ’88), Portland, Oregon, United States (pp. 152–166). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  7. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered designs. San Francisco, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Bjerg, L., & Nielsen, L. Verner (1978). Edb-systemer inden for avisproduktion. Master’s thesis. Århus: DAIMI, University of Århus.Google Scholar
  9. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1984). The application perspective: An other way of con-ceiving edp-based systems and systems development. In M. Sääksjärvi (Ed), Report of the seventh Scandinavian research seminar on systemeering Helsinki School of Economics, Studies B-75 (pp. 204–225). Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.Google Scholar
  10. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1987a). Florence in wonderland. System development with Nurses. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy. A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 279–296). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  11. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1987b). Perspectives on description tools and techniques in system development. In P Docherty, K. Fuchs-Kittowski, P. Kolm & L. Mathiassen (Eds.), System design for human development and productivity: Participation and beyond (pp. 319–330). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1987c). Å implementere en idé. Samarbeid og konstruksjon i Florence-prosjektet (Florence report no 3). (In Norwegian: To implement an idea. Collaboration and construction in the Florence project). Oslo: Department of Informatics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  13. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1988a). The memoirs of two survivors— or evaluation of a computer system for cooperative work. In I. Greif (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW ’88), Portland, Oregon, USA (pp. 167–177). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  14. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1988b). Computers—utensils or epaulets? The application perspective revisited. AI & Society, 2(3), 258–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bjerknes, G., Bratteteig, T., & Espeseth, T. (1991). Evolution of finished computer systems: the dilemma of enhancement. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 3(1), 25–46.Google Scholar
  16. Bjerknes, G., Bratteteig, T., Kaasbøll, J., Sannes, I., & Sinding-Larsen, H. (1985). Gjensidig læring (Florence report no 1). Oslo: Department of Informatics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  17. Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., & Swenton-Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler and A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp.123–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  18. Bratteteig, T. (1997). Mutual learning. Enabling cooperation in systems design. In K. Braa & E. Monteiro (Eds.), Proceedings of IRIS’20, Oslo: Department of Informatics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  19. Bratteteig, T. (2004). Making change. Dealing with relations between design and use. Diss. Oslo: Department of Informatics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  20. Brown, B, Lundin, J., Rost, M., Lymer, G., & Holmquist, L-E. (2007). Seeing ethnographically: Teaching ethnography as part of CSCW. In L. Bannon, I. Wagner, C. Gutwin, R. Harper, and K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’07), Limerick, Ireland (pp. 411–430). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Buchenau, M., & Suri, J.F. (2000). Experience prototyping. In D. Boyarski & W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS’00), New York City, New York, United States (pp. 424–433). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  22. Budde, R., Kautz, K., Kuhlenkamp, K., & Züllighoven, H. (1992). Prototyping: An approach to evolutionary systems development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Bødker, K., Kensing, F., & Simonsen, J. (2004). Participatory IT Design. Designing for Business and Workplace Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2002). The placebo project. In B. Verplank, A. Sutcliffe, W. Mackay, J. Amowitz & W. Gaver (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ’02), London, England (pp. 9–12). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  25. Ehn, P. (1989). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Elovaara, P., Igira, F., & Mörtberg, C. (2006). Whose Participation? Whose Knowledge? – Exploring PD in Tanzania-Zanzibar and Sweden. In I. Wagner, J. Blomberg, G. Jacucci & F. Kensing (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design: Expanding boundaries in design - Volume 1, Trento, Italy (pp. 105–114). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  27. Floyd, C. (1984). A systematic look at prototyping. In R. Budde, K. Kuhlenkamp, L. Mathiassen & H. Züllighoven (Eds.), Approaches to prototyping (pp. 1–18). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Forsythe, D. E. (1999). ‘It’s just a matter of common sense’: Ethnography as invisible work. Computer Supported Collaborative Work, 8(1–2), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foucault M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. [Original 1963]. London: Tavistock Publications, Ltd.Google Scholar
  30. Gasser, L. (1986). The integration of computing and routine work. ACM Transactions on Office Information, 4(3), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. In G. Cockton & P. Korhonen (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ’03), Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA (pp. 233–240). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  33. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Gregory, J. (2000). Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Creating the Electronic Health Record, Re-inventing Medical Records and Patient Care. Diss. San Diego: Department of Communication, University of California-San Diego.Google Scholar
  35. Grudin, J., & Grinter, R. E. (1995). Ethnography and design, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 3(1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hammersley, M., & Atkinsons, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Haraway, D. J. (1994). A game of cat’s cradle: science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies. Configurations, 2(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest_witness@second_millenium. Female man©_meets_ oncomouse™: Feminism and technoscience. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Harper, R. H. R. (2000). The organisation in ethnography: a discussion of ethnographic fieldwork programs in CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 9(2), 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heape, C. R. A. (2007) The Design Space: the design process as the construction, exploration and expansion of a conceptual space. Diss. Sønderborg: Mads Clausen Institute Syddansk Universitet.Google Scholar
  41. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Hine, C. (Ed.). (2005). Virtual methods issues in social research on the Internet. Oxford, New York: BERG.Google Scholar
  43. hook, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  44. Horst, H. (2006). The blessing and burdens of communication: cell phones in Jamacian transnational social fields. Global Networks 6(2), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., & Andersen, H. (1994). Moving out of the control Room: ethnography in system design. In J. B. Smith, F. D. Smith & T. W. Malone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’94), Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States. (pp. 429–439). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  46. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Benderson, B. B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., et al. (2003). Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In G. Cockton & P. Korhonen (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘03), Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA (pp. 17–24). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  47. Ito, Mizuko and Okabe, D Daisuke (2005). Technosocial situations: Emergent structuring of mobile e-mail use. In M. Ito, D. Okabe & M. Matsude (Eds.), Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life (pp. 257–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Jacucci, C., Jacucci, G., Wagner, I., & Psik, T. (2005). A manifesto for the performative development of ubiquitous media. In O. W. Bertelsen, N. O. Bouvin, P. G. Krogh & M. Kyng (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility, Aarhus, Denmark (pp. 19–28). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  49. Jacucci G., & Kuutti, K. (2002). Everyday life as a stage in creating and performing scenarios for wireless devices. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6(4), 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2005). Performative uses of space in mixed media environments. In Davenport, E., & Turner P. (Eds.), Spaces, spatiality and technologies (pp. 191–216). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Jordan, B. (1997). Transforming ethnography: reinventing research. CAM, Cultural Anthropology Methods Journal, 9(3), 12–17.Google Scholar
  52. Jordan, B., & Henderson, K. (1994). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Karasti H. (2001). Increasing sensitivity towards everyday work practice in systems design. Diss. Oulu: The Faculty of Science.Google Scholar
  54. Karasti H. (2003). Can film developers be(come) technology developers? Reflections on gendered expertise and participation in system design. In C. Mörtberg, P. Elovaara, & A. Lundgren (Eds.), How do we make a difference: information technology, transnational democracy and gender (pp. 29–49). Lueå: Printing Office Luleå University of Technology.Google Scholar
  55. Kaasbøll, J., Braa, K., & Bratteteig, T. (1992). User problems concerning functional integration in thirteen organizations. In Avison, Kendall & DeGross (Eds.), Human, Organizational, and Social Dimensions of Information Systems Development, Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference, Noordwijkerhout (pp 61–81). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  56. Larssen, A.T. (forthcoming). ‘How it feels, not just how it looks’: Kinaesthetic experience as an experiential quality for technology design and the study of technology use. Diss. Sydney, Australia: Department of Computer Systems, Faculty of Information Technology.Google Scholar
  57. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Ling, R. (2008). New tech, new ties: how mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Luff, P., & Heath, C. (1998). Mobility in collaboration. In S. Poltrock & J. Grudin (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘98), Seattle, WA (pp. 305–314). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lundberg, J., Ibrahim, A., Jönsson, D., Lindquist, S., & Qvarfordt, P. (2002). ‘The snatcher catcher’: an interactive refrigerator. In O. W. Bertelsen (Ed.), Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ’02), Aarhus, Denmark (pp. 209–212). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  61. Malinowski, B. (1961[1922]). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: an account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. New York: E.P.Dutton & Co, Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Madison, D. Soyini (2005). Critical ethnography. Thousand Oaks: methods, ethics, and performance. London; New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  63. Maquil, V., Psik, T., Wagner, I., & Wagner, M. (2007). Expressive Interactions Supporting Collaboration in Urban Design. In T. Gross & K. Inkpen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work (Group 2007), Sanibel Island, Forida, USA (pp. 69–78). New York: ACM press.Google Scholar
  64. Maquil, V., Psik, T., & Wagner, I. (2008). The colortable: a design story. In A. Schmidt, H. Gellersen, E. Van den Hoven, A. Mazalek, P. Hollies & N. Villar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI’08) Bonn, Germany (pp. 97–104). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  65. Mead, M. (1973[1928]). Coming of age in Samoa: A psychological study of primitive youth for western civilisation. Magnolia: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  66. Morrison, A., Sem, I. & Havnør, M. (2010). Behind the wallpaper: performativity in mixed reality arts. In A. Morrison (Ed.), Inside multimodal composition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  67. Munk-Madsen, A. (1978). Systembeskrivelse med brugere (In Danish: System description with users). Masters thesis, Århus: DAIMI, University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
  68. Mörtberg, C., & Stuedahl, D. (2005). Silences and Sensibilities - increasing participation in IT design. In O. W. Bertelsen, N. O. Bouvin, P. G. Krogh & M. Kyng (Eds.), Critical Computing- Between Sense and Sensibility Proceedings of The Fourth Decennial Aarhus Conference(pp. 141–144). Aarhus, Denmark: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mörtberg, C., & Elovaara, P. (2010). Attaching People and Technology – between e and government. In S. Booth, S. Goodman S & G. Kirkup (Eds.), Gender Issues in Learning and Working with Information Technology: Social Constructs and Cultural Context (pp. 83–98). Hershey, USA: IG Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational technology publ.Google Scholar
  71. Newman, S. (1998). Here, There, and Nowhere at All: Distribution, Negotiation, and Virtuality in Postmodern Ethnography and Engineering. Knowledge and Society, 11, 235–267.Google Scholar
  72. Orr, J. E. (1996) Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  73. Plowman, L., Rogers, Y., & Ramage, M. (1995). What are workplace studies for?, In H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth conference on European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW ’95) (309-324). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  74. Puri, S., Byrne, E., Nhampossa, J.L., & Quraishi Z.B. (2000). Contextuality of participation in IS design: a developing country perspective. In A. Clement & P. van den Besselar (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth conference on participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices – Volume 1, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (pp. 42–52). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  75. Prøitz, L. (2007). The mobile phone turn. A study of gender, sexuality and subjectivity in young people’s mobile phone practices. Diss. Oslo: Department of Media & Communication, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  76. Rorty R (1994). Method, social science and social hope. In S. Seidman (Ed.), The postmodern turn: New perspectives in social theory (pp. 46–64). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Ruhleder, K., & Jordan, B. (1997). Capturing complex distributed activities: Video-based interaction analysis as a component of workplace ethnography. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenauer & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research (pp. 246–275). London UK: Chapman & Hall, Ltd.Google Scholar
  78. Rutter, J., & Smith G. W. H. (2005). Ethnographic presence in a nebulous setting. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 81–92). Oxford, New York: BERG.Google Scholar
  79. Sander, T. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. In C. Hine (Ed), Virtual methods issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 51–66). Oxford, New York: BERG.Google Scholar
  80. Shapiro, D. (1994). The limits of ethnography. In J. B. Smith, F. D. Smith & T. W. Malone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’94), Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States. (pp. 417–428). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  81. Sjöberg, C. (1996). Activities, voices and arenas: Participatory design in practice. Diss. Linköping: University of Linköping.Google Scholar
  82. Star, S. L., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: the ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1–2), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Strauss, A. (1985). Work and the division of labor. The Sociological Quarterly, 26(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stuedahl, D. (2004). Forhandlinger og overtalelser. Kunnskapsbygging på tvers av kunnskapstradisjoner i brukermedvirkende design av ny IKT (Negotiations and persuations. Knowledge building crossing knowledge traditions in user participation in design of new ICT, in Norwegian). Diss. Oslo: InterMedia, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  85. Stuedahl, D. & Smørdal, O. (2010) Design alignment of modalities. In A. Morrsison (Ed.), Inside mulitimodal composition. Creshill N.J.: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  86. Stuedahl, D., Smørdal, O., Dindler, Petersen, C. P. D. (2007). Use of blogs for studying users engagement with mobile telephones in museum environments. Short paper for the 10th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ESCW ’07) Workshop Techniques and Methodologies for Studying Technology Use ‘In the Wild’, Limerick, 24–28 September 2007.Google Scholar
  87. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions. The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Suchman, L., & Wynn, E. (1984). Procedures and problems in the office. Office Technology and People, 2(2), 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sunderburg, E. (Ed.). (2000). Space, site, intervention: Situating installation art. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  90. Thoresen, K. (1981). Terminalarbeidsplasser [Computer Screen Work Places]. Oslo: Tanum-Norli.Google Scholar
  91. Thoresen, K. (1999). Computer use. Diss. Oslo: Department of Informatics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  92. Turnball, D. (2007). Maps narratives and trails: performativity, hodology and distributed knowledges in complex adaptive systems: an approach to emergent mapping, Geographical Research, June 2007, 45(2), 140–149.Google Scholar
  93. Urnes, T., Weltzien, Å., Zanussi, A., Engbakk, S., & Kleppen Rafn, J. (2002). Pivots and Structured Play: stimulating creative user input in concept development. In O. W. Bertelsen (Ed.), Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ’02), Aarhus, Denmark (pp. 187–196). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  94. Wagner, I. (1994). Connecting communities of practice: feminism, science and technology. Women Studies International Forum, 17 (2/3), 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Walker, K. (2007). Visitor-constructed personalized learning trails. In proceedings from Museums and the web 2007, the international conference for culture and heritage online, 11–14 April 2007, San Francisco, Carlifonia.Google Scholar
  96. Wynn, E. (1979). Office conversation as an information medium. Diss. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Mörtberg
    • 1
  • Tone Bratteteig
    • 1
  • Ina Wagner
    • 2
  • Dagny Stuedahl
    • 3
  • Andrew Morrison
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Media and CommunicationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  4. 4.Oslo School of Architecture and DesignOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations