Advertisement

Theorizing About Socio-Technical Approaches to HCI

  • José Abdelnour-Nocera
  • Torkil Clemmensen
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 544)

Abstract

In this paper, we theorize about Socio-Technical approaches to HCI. The Socio-Technical tradition indicates that looking at design only or mainly from a technical design side is insufficient to design systems for work and workers; instead the social and the technical need to be co-designed and contingent on characteristics of the context, the organisation, and its historical development. However, it also argued that this tradition does not provide enough handles for the design of interactive technologies for users. We present Socio-Technical HCI as a distinct field of knowledge outlining the Socio-Technical traditions where it is rooted, and illustrate these with three different conceptual frameworks that have been used to support the design, development, and evaluation of interactive systems. These frameworks are Cognitive Work Analysis, Human-Work Interaction Design, and Technological Frames. These frameworks are compared and analysed in terms of what are a balanced and comprehensive way to in address socio-technical, contextual, and design issues in HCI. It is argued why Human-Work Interaction Design is best placed to address these issues.

Keywords

Socio-technical Human-Computer Interaction Human Work Interaction Design Cognitive Work Analysis Technological frames 

References

  1. 1.
    Bouzekri, E., Canny, A., Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Gris, C.: Using task descriptions with explicit representation of allocation of functions, authority and responsibility to design and assess automation. In: Barricelli, B.R., et al. (eds.) HWID 2018, IFIP AICT 544, pp. 36–56. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clemmensen, T., Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.: Making HCI theory work: an analysis of the use of activity theory in HCI research. Behav. Inf. Technol. 35, 608–627 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Callon, M.: Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociol. Rev. 32(1_suppl), 196–233 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gal, U., Berente, N.: A social representations perspective on information systems implementation: rethinking the concept of “frames”. Inf. Technol. People. 21, 133–154 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cherns, A.B.: Principles of socio-technical design re-visited. Hum. Relat. 40, 153–162 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trist, E., Bamforth, K.: Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall method. Hum. Relat. 4, 3–38 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinch, T., Bijker, W.: The social construction of facts and artifacts. In: Pinch, T., Bijker, W.E. (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems, pp. 17–50. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woolgar, S.: Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. In: Law, J. (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, pp. 58–100. Routledge, London (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mumford, E.: Systems Design: Ethical Tools for Ethical Change. Macmillan, London (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dillon, A.: Group dynamics meet cognition: combining socio-technical concepts and usability engineering in the design of information systems. In: Coakes, E., Willis, D., Lloyd-Jones, R. (eds.) The New SocioTech. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 119–125. Springer, London (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0411-7_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mackay, H., Carne, C., Beynon-Davies, P., Tudhope, D.: Reconfiguring the user: using rapid application development. Soc. Stud. Sci. 30, 737–757 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suchman, L.: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bijker, W.E.: Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Latour, B.: Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bjørn-Andersen, N., Clemmensen, T.: The shaping of the Scandinavian socio-technical is research tradition. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 29, 79–118 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kimbell, L.: Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Des. Cult. 3, 285–306 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gardien, P., Djajadiningrat, T., Hummels, C., Brombacher, A.: Changing your hammer: the implications of paradigmatic innovation for design practice. Int. J. Des. 8, 119 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guba, E.: The alternative paradigm dialog. In: Guba, E. (ed.) The Paradigm Dialog, pp. 17–27. Sage, London (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vicente, K.J.: Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K.: Four paradigms of information systems development. Commun. ACM 32, 1199–1216 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Oussena, S., Burns, C.: Human work interaction design of the smart university. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Barricelli, B.R., Lopes, A., Campos, P., Clemmensen, T. (eds.) HWID 2015. IAICT, vol. 468, pp. 127–140. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27048-7_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hajdukiewicz, J., Burns, C.: Strategies for bridging the gap between analysis and design for ecological interface design. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 479–483. SAGE Publications (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burns, C.M., Skraaning, G., Jamieson, G.A., Lau, N., Kwok, J., Welch, R., Andresen, G.: Evaluation of ecological interface design for nuclear process control: situation awareness effects. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 50, 663–679 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hajdukiewicz, J.R., Burns, C.M., Vicente, K.J., Eggleston, R.G.: Work domain analysis for intentional systems. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 333–337. SAGE Publications (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burns, C.M., Enomoto, Y., Momtahan, K.: A cognitive work analysis of cardiac care nurses performing teletriage. In: Applications of Cognitive Work Analysis, pp. 149–174 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Euerby, A., Burns, C.M.: Improving social connection through a communities of practice-inspired cognitive work analysis approach. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 56, 361 (2013). 0018720813494410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vicente, K.J.: A history of cognitive engineering research at Risø (1962–1979). In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 210–214. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clemmensen, T., Orngreen, R., Pejtersen, A.M.: Describing Users in Contexts: Perspectives on Human-Work Interaction Design. In: Workshop Proceedings of Interact. Citeseer (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clemmensen, T.: A human work interaction design (HWID) case study in E-government and public information systems. Int. J. Public Inf. Syst. 7, 105–113 (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Annett, J., Duncan, K.D.: Task analysis and training design (1967)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salmon, P., Jenkins, D., Stanton, N., Walker, G.: Hierarchical task analysis vs. cognitive work analysis: comparison of theory, methodology and contribution to system design. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 11, 504–531 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Button, G., Sharrock, W.: Studies of work and the workplace in HCI: concepts and techniques. Synth. Lect. Hum. Centered Inform. 2, 1–96 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Dunckley, L., Sharp, H.: An approach to the evaluation of usefulness as a social construct using technological frames. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 22, 153–172 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D.: About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Wiley, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oh, Y., Do, E.Y.-L., Gross, M.D.: Intelligent critiquing of design sketches. In: Davis, J.L.R., Stahovich, T., Miller, R., Saund, E. (eds.) Making Pen-Based Interaction Intelligent and Natural, pp. 127–133. AAAI Press, Arlington (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Barricelli, B.R., Valtolina, S., Gadia, D., Marzullo, M., Piazzi, C., Garzulino, A.: Participatory action design research in archaeological context. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Barricelli, B.R., Lopes, A., Campos, P., Clemmensen, T. (eds.) HWID 2015. IAICT, vol. 468, pp. 192–211. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27048-7_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Orlikowski, W., Gash, D.C.: Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organisations. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 12, 174–207 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suchman, L.: Practice-based design of information systems: notes from the hyperdeveloped world. Inf. Soc. 18, 139–144 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hansen, T.R.: Strings of experiments: looking at the design process as a set of socio-technical experiments. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Participatory Design: Expanding Boundaries in Design, pp. 1–10. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Dunckley, L.: Sociotechnical research and knowledge communication in community-centred systems design: a technological frames perspective. Int. J. Web Commun. 4, 476–490 (2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Camara, S.: Addressing sociotechnical gaps in the design and deployment of digital resources in Rural Kenya. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference on the Design of Communication, pp. 45:1–45:5. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miller, C.A., Vicente, K.J.: Task “versus” work domain analysis techniques: a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 328–332. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Burns, C.: Cognitive work analysis: new dimensions. In: Campos, P., Clemmensen, T., Nocera, J.A., Katre, D., Lopes, A., Ørngreen, R. (eds.) HWID 2012. IAICT, vol. 407, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41145-8_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gonçalves, F., Campos, P., Clemmensen, T.: Human work interaction design: an overview. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Barricelli, B.R., Lopes, A., Campos, P., Clemmensen, T. (eds.) HWID 2015. IAICT, vol. 468, pp. 3–19. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27048-7_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Katre, D., Orngreen, R., Yammiyavar, P., Clemmensen, T. (eds.): HWID 2009. IAICT, vol. 316. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11762-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Khoo, M., Kusunoki, D., MacDonald, C.: Finding problems: when digital library users act as usability evaluators. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), pp. 1615–1624. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cajander, Å., Larusdottir, M., Eriksson, E., Nauwerck, G.: Contextual personas as a method for understanding digital work environments. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Barricelli, B.R., Lopes, A., Campos, P., Clemmensen, T. (eds.) HWID 2015. IAICT, vol. 468, pp. 141–152. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27048-7_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jamieson, G.A., Vicente, K.J.: Ecological interface design for petrochemical applications: supporting operator adaptation, continuous learning, and distributed, collaborative work. Comput. Chem. Eng. 25, 1055–1074 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Clemmensen, T.: Socio-technical HCI for ethical value exchange. In: Clemmensen, T., Rajamanickam, V., Dannenmann, P., Petrie, H., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2017. LNCS, vol 10774, pp. 148–159. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92081-8_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing and EngineeringUniversity of West LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.M-ITIFunchalPortugal
  3. 3.Department of DigitalizationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations