Intertext: On Connecting Text in the Building Process

  • Lars Rune ChristensenEmail author
Conference paper


Actors in the building process are critically dependent on a corpus of written text that draws the distributed work tasks together. This paper introduces, on the basis of a field study, the concepts of corpus, intertext and intertextuality to the analysis of text in cooperative work practice. This paper shows that actors in the building process create intertext (connections) between complementary texts, in a particular situation and for a particular task. This has an integrating effect on the building process. Several types of intertextuality, including the complementary type, the intratextual type and the mediated type, may constitute the intertext of a particular task. By employing the concepts of corpus, intertext and intertextuality with respect to the study of the building process, this paper outlines an approach to the investigation of text in cooperative work.


Concrete Slab Cooperative Work Building Process Engineering Plan Building Element 
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.



I am indebted to the people of MT Højgaard A/S and PHIL & Søn A/S for letting me take up so much of their time.


  1. Bakhtin, M. M., & Volosinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bardram, J., & Bossen, C. (2005). A web of coordinative artefacts: Collaborative work in a hospital ward (pp. 168–176). Sanible Island: GROUP.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1992). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bricon-Souf, N., & Newman, C. R. (2007). Context awareness in health care: A review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2007). “…and do it the usual way”: Fostering awareness of work conventions in document-mediated collaboration. In ECSCW (pp. 119–138). Limerick, Ireland: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, L. R. (2013). Coordinative practices in the building process: an ethnographic perspective. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, L. (2014). Practices of stigmergy in the building process. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 23, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, L. R., & Bjorn, P. (2014). Documentscape: Intertextuality, sequentiality, and autonomy at work. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2451–2460). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. de Saussure, F. (1974). Course in general linguistics. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  10. Ellingsen, G., & Monteiro, E. (2003). Mechanisms for producing a working knowledge: Enacting, orchestrating and organizing. Information and Organization, 13, 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  12. Harper, R. (1998). Inside The IMF: An ethnography of documents, technology and organizational action. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harper, R. H. R. (2000). The organisation in ethnography—A discussion of ethnographic fieldwork programs in CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 9, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hertzum, M. (1999). Six roles of documents in professionals’ work. In Sixth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 12–16, 1999 (pp. 41–60).Google Scholar
  15. Kreiner, K. (1976). The site organization—A study of social relationships on construction sites. The Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
  16. Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Luff, P., Heath, C., & Greatbatch, D. (1992). Tasks-in-interaction: Paper and screen based documentation in collaborative activity. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Malone, T. (1983). How do people organize their desks? Implications for the design of office information systems. ACM Transactioins on Information Systems, 1, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Riffaterre, M. (1980). Syllepsis. Critical Inquiry, 6, 625–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sabbagh, K. (1989). Skyscraper: The making of a building. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt, K., & Wagner, I. (2004). Ordering systems: Coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 13, 349–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmidt, K., Wagner, I., & Tolar, M. (2007). Permutations of cooperative work practices: A study of two oncology clinics. Sanibel Island, FL: GROUP. 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schutz, A. (1970). Reflections on the problem of relevance. New York: Pegasus.Google Scholar
  24. Strauss, A. L., Fagerhaugh, S., Suczek, B., & Wiener, C. (1997). Social organization of medical work. London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Williams, M. (1999). Wittgenstein, mind and meaning: Towards a social conception of mind. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xiao, Y., Lasome, C., Moss, J., Mackenzie, C., & Faraj, S. (2001). Cognitive properties of a whiteboard: A case study in a trauma centre. In Seventh European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative work, Bonn, Germany, 2001 (pp. 259–278).Google Scholar
  27. Zhou, X., Ackerman, M., & Zheng, K. (2011). CPOE workarounds, boundary objects, and assemblages. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3353–3362). Vancouver, Canada: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IT-University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations