Paradoxes of participatory practices: the Janus role of the systems developer

Information and Organization 13 (2003) 1–24www.elsevier.com/locate/infoandorg

Paradoxes of participatory practices: the Janusrole of the systems developer

Debra Howcrofta,∗, Melanie Wilsonb

a University of Salford, IS Research Centre, Salford M5 4WT, UKb UMIST, School of Management, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK

Received 18 May 2002; accepted 19 May 2002

Abstract

This paper sets out on a political exploration of the paradoxes of participatory practiceswhich are brought to the fore via the application of a critical framework. In addition, theworker participation literature is used to illuminate some of the contradictions of user partici-pation in Information Systems Development. This approach places emphasis on the fundamen-tally conflictual nature of organizational relations. The set of resultant paradoxes which thisphenomenon engenders is presented. One consequence of the conflictual nature of organiza-tions is the antagonistic relations between end-users (employees) and sponsors of the system(managers). In this paper we highlight the contradictions entailed in the systems developer’srole when intervening between the groups, attempting to enrol them into participation as wellas develop a system that will deliver on the promises made on its behalf during the enrolmentprocess. The analogy of the two-headed Roman god, Janus, is made in relation to the role ofthe systems developer, in order to emphasize the incompatibility of needs of organizationalmembers. The paradoxes enumerated in the paper (namely: rhetoric of empowerment, rhetoricof involvement, exclusion of dissent, illusions of compatibility, and outcome of participation)are adjusted to the role of the Janus systems developer, revealing the latter to be a captive ofthese contradictions. Finally, some conclusions for future academic research and professionalpractice are drawn. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Paradox; Contradiction; Conflict; Power; User participation; End-user; Janus; Critical manage-ment studies (CMS)

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Howcroft).

1471-7727/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S1471 -7727(02 )00023-4

2 D. Howcroft, M. Wilson / Information and Organization 13 (2003) 1–24

1. Introduction

This paper aims to provide a political analysis of some significant paradoxes ofparticipatory practices1 hidden by dominant myths in organizations. It has beenargued that in information systems development the dominant, rational mythobscures the ‘background myth’ of political behavior which may be culturally lessacceptable, but no less important (Boland and Pondy, 1983). Thus, following a well-founded tradition, our view of user participation is consistent with the conceptualiz-ation of systems design and implementation as a process of social contention andpolitical, as well as technical, determination (Franz & Robey, 1984; Markus, 1983;Noble, 1984; Winner, 1985). The study of contradictions, pivotal to understandingchange (O’Connor, 1995), is enabled by an emphasis on the conflictual nature oforganizations. This is realized through the application of a critical framework andinsights from the worker participation literature to the issue of user participation insystems development.

The significance of establishing the conflictual nature of organizations is to deducewhat this means for the position of the systems developer. Beath and Orlikowski(1994) suggest that the contradictory nature of user participation in the systemsdevelopment process might be rooted in the division of labor between users and theinformation system, the locus of control over IT resources, and allocation of invest-ments in technical and work expertise. In this paper we also examine the forces thatproduce the conflictual context in more detail, thereby providing an explication forthe poor record of systems development. For, despite the popularity of user partici-pation (Asaro, 2000), an obvious anomaly threatening its validity is the fact thateven with user participation, resistance still occurs. For many years, studies haveconsidered it self-evident that user participation would ultimately lead to the eventualsuccess of the information system. However, the research has shown very mixedresults.

Now, whilst the contradictory nature of the systems analyst’s intervention is likelyto occur in any development, the paradoxes are more pronounced for the developerin the case of participation. As the social nature of systems development has becomeincreasingly recognized and the role of users seen as crucial, so it is accepted thatnot involving the users in the design and implementation of information systemsprecludes success (Newman & Noble, 1990). Thus, in contrast to developers whopreviously believed the problem lay with improving the technical aspects of systems,many of the proponents of participatory approaches came to focus their attention onenrolling acceptance from the users through the adoption of participation in design(Mumford & Weir, 1979; Mumford, 1983). Adopting a structural analysis of organi-zations, we have found it both useful and necessary to identify three distinct groupsin relation to participation projects: managers (sponsors), employees (end-users), and

1 The various methodologies these approaches have arrived at fall under the broad description of‘participatory design’ and share this description by virtue of the fact that they seek to integrate the end-users of an information system into the process by which that system is designed (Asaro, 2000).

3D. Howcroft, M. Wilson / Information and Organization 13 (2003) 1–24

systems developers. We go on to argue that the said systems developer is placed inan untenable and contradictory position between two camps. This does not implythat, at a local level, tensions and contradictions within each of these groups are notobservable or that the groups are homogenous and always act in line with the interestswe have identified for them.2 Further, it is our contention that any local interactionswill be in some way shaped by the tendencies we identify. The notion of the Janusrole arises from the recognition of the fundamental antagonisms between users,implying that the developer must make different promises of resultant benefits tothe distinct groups. It may be fruitful, therefore, to explore the paradoxical role ofthe systems developer through a deconstruction of the language of enrolment, high-lighting the dissonance between rhetorics of participation and empowerment asagainst the actuality of maintenance of the relationship of power and powerlessness.

The paper is structured as follows. The first section begins by explaining the his-torically progressive nature of user participation whilst stressing some of the prob-lems, limitations, and contradictions it entails. Then, a critical approach is outlinedin order to enable an exploration of the paradoxical nature of user participation. Thisis also achieved in part by drawing an analogy between user participation and workerparticipation. In the subsequent section we infer what these paradoxes of participationmay mean for the role of the ‘Janus’ developer who is forced to sell the systemdifferently to managers and employees. Finally, some conclusions for future practiceand research are drawn.

2. Paradoxes in user participation methodologies

In this section we seek to outline some paradoxes entailed in the employment ofuser participation methodologies in information systems development. This precedesthe section that will provide an explanation of these contradictions as due to anunderlying pluralist politic on the part of its advocates.

2.1. Different approaches

A substantial body of research is concerned with user participation in the processof information systems development, although the principle is applied differentlyfrom country to country. In the UK, user participation first took root with the pro-ponents of socio-technical design (for example, Land & Hirschheim, 1983; Mumford,1983) which concerned itself primarily with the ‘fi t’ between social and technicalaspects of systems development. Participatory practices were adopted in order tohelp maximize this ‘fi t’ . In Scandinavia, participation has been accepted practice formany years (Bjerknes et al., 1987), almost to the extent that it has become insti-tutionalized. Yet Scandinavian research projects differ culturally and politically in

2 Indeed, an exploration of these intra-group tensions is worthy of study in its own right, but is morelikely to be amenable to empirical research than to ‘pure’ theoretical analysis.


that they subscribe to the notion of increasing workplace democracy: the intentionbeing that all employees should have influence over their work situation and partici-pate in decision-making forums regardless of their position within the organizationalhierarchy (Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995). Meanwhile, in America, user participationhas only recently begun to have some influence, notably in relation to CSCW(Muller, 1992) and Joint Application Development (Camel et al., 1993). However,despite ideological differences underlying the various approaches and methodologies,it has been argued that there is a convergence on a set of shared concerns, responseto problems, similar practices, and identifiable commonalties among groups(Asaro, 2000).

2.2. Levels of participation

Contradictions arise with regard to user participation since, in practice, it variesquite considerably, taking many forms and operating on different levels (Cavaye,1995). ETHICS methodology (Mumford & Weir, 1979; Mumford, 1983)—one ofthe oft-cited representatives of participatory models—distinguishes between threedifferent levels of participation; this ranges from tokenistic involvement wherebyusers have little or no decision-making power, to a much higher degree of userinvolvement and influence. Yet, generally speaking, mangers pay lip service to userinvolvement, often resorting to symbolic rather than substantive support (Davis &Olsen, 1985); this tokenism is frequently reflected in the composition of the workgroup. For, whilst end-users prefer elected rather than selected representatives(‘puppets’ ), the opposite is true for management. Newman and Noble (1990) describemore superficial types of user participation as ‘pseudo-involvement’ as the systemsdeveloper is only interested in the needs of end-users for the supply of informationfor design purposes. According to Lawler (1993) employee involvement implies adegree of teamwork and egalitarianism, but as O’Connor (1995, p. 780) notes, thereis a persistent identification of those who are ‘ in’ the effort and those who are not;of those who drive it and those being driven. She writes: “ the change effort is por-trayed as a struggle between those who are ‘with’ or ‘against’ the champion”(O’Connor, 1995, p. 782). As a consequence, disagreement or conflict is labeled asresistance and treated as deviation, to be controlled through education and training.

The tendency to focus on the quantity of participation as opposed to the qualityhas been noted; yet, in practical terms, the involvement and adequacy of the partici-pation process is said to represent a far more crucial factor in project success(Saarinen & Saaksjarvi, 1990). Further, the formal degree of involvement does nottake into account the fact that, seen from a user perspective, his/her actual levelof participation may differ from their desired level and this may affect subsequentsatisfaction. Doll and Torkzadeh (1988) found that users who are either less or moreinvolved than they wished are far less satisfied with the resulting system. King andLee (1991) thus conclude that satisfaction can be maximized by ensuring theirdesired level of participation matches the actual level of participation. Systems devel-opment projects that either enhance or restore perceived user control are far morelikely to result in satisfaction with the implemented system (Baronas & Louis, 1988).


2.3. Stated rationale for participatory methodologies

Undoubtedly, for both practitioners and academics alike, the involvement of usersis often perceived as one of the most crucial factors influencing systems success(Mumford & Weir, 1979; Davis & Olsen, 1985; Doll & Torkzadeh, 1988). Indeed,it is often recommended as a strategy for increasing user commitment to theimplemented system and as a tool for overcoming resistance to change (Wong &Tate, 1994). Participation is also encouraged as a means of eliciting more accurateuser requirements, since poorly understood requirements are often seen as resultingin poor-quality systems (Mumford, 1995). The rationale for adopting user partici-pation has been summarized as follows:

� Workers should be given better tools instead of having their work or skills auto-mated;

� End-users are better qualified to determine how to improve their work and theirworking life;

� End-users’ perceptions and feelings about technology are as important as techni-cal specifications;

� Information technology can only be appropriately addressed within the context ofthe workplace (Clement & Besselaar, 1993).

However, a major contradiction in these assumptions is that the research has shownvery mixed results in relation to systems success.3 There are systems developmentprojects where users participate but which are not successful, yet there are also pro-jects which are successful but where users do not participate. At best the findingsare inconclusive (Olson & Ives, 1981; Cavaye, 1995). It would seem that that thelink between user participation and system success is considerably more complexthan traditionally assumed and that user participation per se is insufficient, with stra-tegies required to account for the social and political processes at play (Hirschheim &Newman, 1988; Lewis, 1994).

2.4. Managerial motives for participatory methodologies

In order to understand why the popularity of user participation has increased overthe years, we need to look more broadly at explicit motives for adoption. In addition,context and depth can be provided for understanding information systems’ partici-patory practices by drawing on elements of the worker participation literature.According to Strauss (1998) recent economic and technological developments havestrengthened the case for worker participation in so-called ‘developed’ countries.

3 An early study of the links between system success and user participation (Olson & Ives, 1981)showed positive, negative, and inconclusive findings, with only 36% of the studies supporting a positiveparticipation–success link. When Cavaye (1995) updated this review, looking at research from 1982–1992, she also found that only a minority (37%) revealed a positive relationship. Interestingly, even afterover a decade of research the findings are still as inconclusive as the earlier studies.


Participation is seen as the key to competitive advantage. With increasing globaliz-ation, so the argument goes, industry is under mounting pressure to produce high-quality, specialized ‘high-tech’ products and services, all of which require a flexibleand highly trained workforce. And so participation is articulated as the ‘silver bullet’that will provide employees who are motivated and trained to initiate their owndecisions, yet work effectively within a team when required. For some, these culturalchanges are far easier to accommodate when they are made participatively asopposed to being introduced autocratically.

But worker participation in general is often ‘ faddish’ (Marchington et al., 1993).In the past, buzzwords such as Quality of Working Life, work humanization, QualityCircles, Human Resource Management, and Total Quality Management had immenseappeal to managers looking for a ‘quick fix’ to their immediate problems. This tend-ency to follow the latest fads (Zbaracki, 1998; Ciborra, 2000) and opt for what appearto be easy solutions, means that management often perceives participation as a low-cost remedy to problems of low productivity, high absenteeism, poor quality, andconflict with the workforce (Strauss, 1998). For whilst developers may well havebeen working from within the humanistic welfare paradigm, the key decision-makerswithin the organizations (i.e., those who may legitimately initiate or close down aninformation systems project) are likely to be working from within the managerialparadigm (Land, 2000). It is possible that these perspectives are neither compatiblenor reconcilable. They may even be diametrically opposed. It comes as little surprise,therefore, that many participation programmes fail to live up to expectations.

2.5. Paradoxes of humanistic rhetoric

A number of paradoxes stem from the duality presented in increasing managerialcontrol and surveillance, whilst purporting to increase user autonomy (Asaro, 2000).These have been summarized by O’Connor (1995) in reference to worker partici-patory practices which we suggest can equally apply to user participation method-ologies.

� Involvement is limited to those who participate in decisions to initiate change,for the rest their involvement is more strictly defined as agreeing and following.

� Disagreement or protest is not involvement, rather, it is resistance and is associatedwith lack of understanding.

� Organization members wait to have roles defined and decisions made, yet resentthe regulating actions of authority.

� Involvement is the taking of sides: one is either ‘with’ (included) or ‘against’(excluded) the champion.

� Organizational learning and employee empowerment are rhetoric disguising thefact that change is undertaken primarily for economic motives.

These points have been integrated into the summary of paradoxes and the impli-cations they hold for the systems developer are discussed in Section 4 below.


3. A critical approach to user participation: the paradoxes of pluralism

An examination of the pluralist nature of the assumptions underpinning user par-ticipation methodologies is necessary since it provides some level of explanation forthe number of paradoxes accentuated by this paper. In the first part of this section,we cast an eye over the political tradition in information systems research and thecontribution this has made to our understanding of the contradictory nature of sys-tems development. In an effort to extend this tradition we outline a critical frameworkdeveloped in Critical Management Studies. We then use this framework to pinpointthe pluralist politic inherent in user participation before going on to delineate itsweaknesses in relation to the paradoxes it generates.

3.1. Politics and conflict in systems development

As we have stated, paradoxes with participatory methodologies arise in part fromthe contradictory nature of organizational relations. Boland and Pondy (1983) haveargued that in systems development the rational myth is predominant because of itsclose association with computing and logical decision processes. Thus, designing asystem haphazardly or in an overtly political manner would violate organizationalnorms of rationality. The rational myth thus assumes a ‘ foreground’ position andprovides a tangible trail of evidence (project schedules, etc.) which shows actorsbehave in accordance with these cultural expectations.

Indeed, for some twenty years the political and conflictual nature of systems devel-opment within organizations has been commented (Franz & Robey, 1984; Lyytinen,1987; Newman & Noble, 1990). Take, for example, the following:

….political interests are of basic importance to the actors in the organization.Political actions are not isolated episodes to be interpreted within the context ofrational problem-solving efforts. It is the other way round. The rational elementsare tools used by participants to gain new ground or to protect ground alreadywon. They also serve as ‘ facades’ to mask political motives and legitimize self-interest. (Franz and Robey, 1984, p. 1209)

In seeking to remove some of this facade and “ to give some voice to those thingsthat were hidden or not immediately visible” (Deetz, 1992, Cited in O’Connor (1995,p. 792), we shall draw out a number of paradoxes and contradictions in the practiceof participatory techniques. In keeping with the political view, organizations can beviewed as arenas for political activity where actors engage in conflict and negotiatetheir private interests (Mintzberg, 1980; Pfeffer, 1981). However, awareness of polit-ical motives does not suggest that behavior becomes overtly political. Actors observeprevailing norms of rationality by justifying action on rational grounds and honoringthe appropriate organizational rituals. Franz and Robey (1984) recognize that systemscan affect the balance of power in an organization and be used politically as wellas for systematic problem solving. Markus (1983) supports this view, with the pro-


vision of empirical evidence to emphasize the nature of political conflict entailedwithin the development process.

This has implications for systems developers. The role of the systems developeris seen primarily as that of the provider of a technical ‘solution’ , with little or noattention paid to the social skills that are required to manage what is often fairlysubstantial organizational change. Yet research on the effects of conflict resolutionon the success of systems development projects has stressed the strong relationshipbetween the two (Robey et al., 1993). This therefore implies that certain politicalskills are required on the part of the developer, if their projects are to be deemed a‘success’ . As Beirne et al. (1998, p. 157) put it:

software specification, design and implementation are all matters of contestationbetween different individual and group interests. It follows that to negotiate thetreacherous waters of competing demands from different managerial and usergroups, a developer needs political skills as well as ones of systems analysis.

3.2. A critical framework for political analysis

3.2.1. BackgroundO’Connor (1995, p. 772) suggests that studying paradoxes and contradictions

could be pivotal to understanding change and she has argued that “whether groundedin capitalism, organizations, or human nature, the contradictions have not receivedthe attention they deserve” . Invoking a critical perspective is one means by whicha deeper understanding of the change process can begin to be developed. In thiscase, our strategy is to deconstruct the assumptions of user participation. Followingin the tradition initiated by Braverman (1974), who inaugurated a radical critique ofthe use of technology in organizations because of the potential of increased exploi-tation of the workers, in this paper we take issue with the largely uncritical accept-ance of participatory approaches based on views of organizations which do not seekto explore the contradictions emanating from their conflictual nature4. In order tocarry out the critique, we have drawn on the critical management studies literature,

4 Braverman sought to distance himself or critique the ascription of poor performance on the part ofworkers in organizations as due to worker irrationality. Instead, he sought to identify the ‘objectivity’ ofworking-class opposition to capital. For him, academic sociology, by seeking solutions to worker alien-ation in job-enrichment schemes concentrated on the adjustment of workers to productive activity, ratherthan to the nature of work itself. He dismissed this kind of approach as apologetic, arguing that regardlessof the subjective state of mind of workers, there was no antidote to alienation. Like Braverman, Burroway(1985) and Thompson (1983) also identified a ‘structured antagonism’ at the base of a capital and labourrelation, although they inaugurated a concentration instead on the subjective experience of workers, givingrise to the Labour Process approach.


since this area is well developed with an increasing proliferation of sources (e.g.,Alvesson and Willmott, 1996; Critical Management Studies Conference, 1998)5.

3.2.2. Critical frameworkA critical perspective has been variously summarized (Knights & Murray, 1994;

Burgoyne & Reynolds, 1997; Alvesson & Deetz, 2000) and entails the core aspectsdescribed in Table 1.

3.2.3. Application of the critical framework to user participationAn application of the critical framework by performing the Critical Activities

described in Table 1 to the issue of user participation projects a substantial numberof paradoxes as well as providing us with the insights described below.

3.2.3.1. Critical elements: assumptions, power relations, and emancipation Advo-cates of participatory approaches are often concerned with improving the conditionsfor end-users. Such approaches may be considered a welcome step in overcominglimitations of hard or ‘ technicist’ approaches since the concerns for ‘quality of work-ing life’ served to establish the validity of the users’ contribution to the process ofsystems development. However, the co-existence of distinct managerial and welfareparadigms as identified by Land (2000) makes for a paradoxical situation. Here, itis useful to make a comparison with critical management studies and its treatment

Table 1Critical framework

Critical focus Critical elements Critical activity Critical outcome

Hidden aspects Concerned with Interpretation producing Highlights hidden or the leastquestioning insights obvious aspects and meanings ofassumptions a chunk of reality

Power aspects Sensitized to power Critique exploring Shows the problematic nature ofrelations domination and repression these meanings and the material

arrangements and social ordersthey indicate

Freedom aspects Committed to Transformative Undermines their seemingemancipation redefinition indicating robustness by encouraging

alternative ways to alternative ways of constructingimagining what exists reality

5 Even though the labor process approach (Knights and Willmott), which later became critical manage-ment studies, constituted a retreat from Braverman’s radical aims (Spencer, 2000), we have neverthelessdrawn on the latter as they are well developed and have given rise to a proliferation of sources (e.g.,Alvesson and Willmott, 1996; the Critical Management Studies conference). This does not imply, how-ever, a disagreement on our part with the basic tenets and aims set out by Braverman. Indeed, Scandinavianand British participatory projects were criticised at the time by Marxist theorists in Scandinavia for pro-moting fundamentally capitalist values — that is, increasing productivity and curtailing worker resistance(Asaro, 2000, p. 268).


of worker participation in the production process. As Willmott (1993) shows, thereis a dissonance between managers’ use of empowerment language to employees andtheir utilitarian concerns and powerful manipulations. O’Connor (1995) has high-lighted the paradoxical nature of the word empowerment itself, showing how man-agers often refer to empowering others, yet if one depends on someone else to bethe giver of that power, then one does not have power. We argue that such obser-vations are applicable and instructive for user participation in systems development.This would imply that, although advocates of user participation are more than likelyto be concerned with and driven by improving the conditions of end-users, this maynot be a persuasive argument for managers when considering whether or not to adoptsuch an approach. After all, as we have seen above, it is a managerial decision asto what type of approach is used in the first place, and this will be instrumental inprescribing the level of involvement desired. Further, this is acknowledged by oneof the champions of user participation: Mumford (1997, p. 310) explicitly states thatif user participation is to be adopted in industry it “must be seen to reduce risk bycontributing to organizational stability in ways that are recognised by management” .This acceptance of the necessity to satisfy the needs of management is furtherendorsed, as Mumford (1997, p. 310) goes on to argue that if companies are tointroduce user participation practices, then it requires “a benefit that pays dividendsand increases profits” . Whilst to some this may be an acceptable move for theachievement of ‘success’ , the point is that it contains a very weak notion of freedomand is based on certain political assumptions. Specifically, we identify a pluralistpolitic inherent in the approach.

3.2.3.2. Critical outcome: pluralist politic in user participation Summarizing apluralist politic is difficult because it has many variants and so, following Fox (1973),a generalized perspective is offered here. The organization is not seen as a unitarystructure,

...but a coalition of individuals and groups with their own aspirations and theirown perceptions. It includes the notion that individuals and groups with widelyvarying priorities agree to collaborate in social structures which enable all parti-cipants to get something of what they want...Thus the enterprise is seen as acomplex of tensions and competing claims which have to be ‘managed’ in theinterests of maintaining a viable collaborative structure within which all stake-holders can, with varying degrees of success, pursue their aspirations. (Fox,1973, p. 192–3, our emphasis).

In relation to systems development, a pluralist perspective (that assumes all stake-holders can pursue their aspirations) tends to ignore some of the paradoxes we havesought to emphasize: first, the differences in power entailed in the user participationprocess—especially who prescribes and controls the type and level of user involve-ment; secondly, that the distinct benefits proffered to employees on the one hand(improved working conditions and increased control), and managers on the other(increased productivity and diminished resistance) may be incompatible in practice.


This places the systems developer in an onerous situation in having to satisfy thedemands of both parties via the new technology. Hence, we argue that the proponentsof user participation who aim to overcome, reduce, and reconcile these differentinterests reflect a pluralist politic.

Why does the existence of a pluralist politic create problems for practitioners?We suggest that it leads people to believe that conflict can be eliminated and allviews can be reconciled, thereby encouraging a search for an unattainable utopiawithin the realities of organizational life.

From a critical perspective, then, pluralism is flawed, giving rise to a host ofparadoxes for the following reasons:

� It sees the competing claims as negotiable (rather than, for example, potentiallydiametrically opposed).

� It does not recognize the power of management to control and decide the termsof this negotiation process.

� It accepts the notion of a fair trade between workers and management (‘a fairday’s pay for a fair day’s work’ ) whereas theories critical of the capitalist systemhold that production and the pursuit of profit are inescapably based on exploitation(for example, the Marxist tradition and its derivatives).

� To a large extent, the aim of pluralism is to achieve consensus within the existingframework via a shift in relative power between managers and workers. Thus, thefundamental issues of the hierarchical nature of organizations and profit motiveare ‘black boxed’ .

So, in spite of its seemingly progressive nature, proponents of participatoryapproaches do not address the problems of conflict which arise from the unequaldistribution of power (Ehn, 1992) and the irreconcilability of management andworker needs (Winograd, 1996). From this perspective, participation may be framedas essentially a managerialist approach since it does not challenge the power orlegitimacy of managers’ right to manage. An illustration of the latent pluralist politicwithin user participation is found within the ETHICS methodology, which has beenlabeled the ‘harmony perspective’ (Nygaard & Sorgaard, 1987) since—as is true ofother participatory methodologies—it takes little account of circumstances whereconflict is endemic and cannot simply be resolved by ‘open’ debate.

3.2.4. Contribution of critical frameworkWe suggest, in relation to the exploration of paradoxes of participatory method-

ologies, a critical perspective offers the following advantages:Hidden aspects: A critical perspective can be used to question precisely those

areas of organizational relationships left intact by pluralism. Conflict and contradic-tion thereby become the focus of attention instead of something to be eliminated(Knights & Murray, 1994).

Power aspects: A critical perspective acknowledges that some actors are disadvan-taged in terms of power and skills in relation to others, and accepts that the levelof commitment is likely to be uneven, as all members cannot be considered equalstakeholders.


Freedom aspects: A critical perspective can also shed light on what motivates therepresentatives of the different actors in the opposing sides of industrial relations,especially in relation to emancipatory considerations. As O’Connor (1995, p. 791)remarks,

although the rhetoric emphasises goals of organizational learning and employeeempowerment, change is undertaken primarily for economic motives, amid press-ure for quick, measurable results.

Hence, in the present period, trade union representatives might be involved in theuser participation process because, given their relatively weak position, any involve-ment can appear better than exclusion (Eccles, 1993, p. 390). On the other hand, theinstrumentalism of managers becomes evident in conflict theory. Here the adoptionof a pluralist stance by managers can be interpreted as convenient for achievingincreased productivity and compliance from workers. The limited nature of promisedfreedom as conceived in participation is thus highlighted.

In sum then, a critical perspective informs us that not all actors are equally naiveabout the possibilities of power sharing, democracy, and benefits for employeesinvolved in user participation. Indeed, the more Machiavellian managers are likelyto be aware of their own instrumentalism in pursuing a policy which seeks to guaran-tee the compliance of employees in the process of change. This point (implicit inMumford’s comments above) is amply illustrated by one manager in a Japanesetransplant in Wales: “Our preferred style is one of persuasion, involvement, encour-agement: the iron fist in the velvet glove” (Wilkinson et al., 1995, p. 826). We arguehere that parallels can be drawn with user participation in systems development,whereby the whole process brings together a number of actors whose relationshipis inherently antagonistic from the outset with tensions and conflicts remaining unre-solved and residing in the eventual product outcome6. The paradoxes that result fromthese conflictual organizational relations are summarized in Table 2.

Some of the implications that these paradoxes hold for the systems developer aresuggested in the next section.

4. The systems developer as Janus

In this section we look at the potential implications of the conflictual nature oforganizations for the role of the systems developer trapped between two potentiallyhostile forces. We explore the role played by the systems developer in the processof development, which is perceived by many as a site of conflict (Franz & Robey,1984; Lyytinen, 1987; Newman & Noble, 1990). As we have seen, from a critical

6 Indeed, Westrup (1999) argues that requirements documents inscriptions, commonly seen as provid-ing legitimate knowledge of the organization, act as resources to resolve tensions and enable informationsystems to be implemented successfully. As result, more progressive requirements techniques have morerhetorical force than historical accuracy.


Table 2Summary of paradoxes of participation

Rhetoric of There exists a dissonance between rhetorics of participation and empowermentempowerment as against the actuality of maintenance of the relationship of power and

powerlessness.A number of paradoxes stem from the duality presented in increasingmanagerial control and surveillance, whilst purporting to increase userautonomy.Empowerment as a rhetorical tool disguises the fact that change is undertakenprimarily for economic motives.The word empowerment is itself paradoxical.

Rhetoric of Users may be given a relatively passive role to play despite heavy emphasisinvolvement on user involvement.

Contradictions arise with regard to the variety in levels of participation.There is no involvement on the issue of who prescribes and controls the typeand level of user involvement.Involvement is limited to those who participate in decisions to initiate change,for the rest their involvement is more strictly defined as agreeing andfollowing.

Exclusion of dissent Disagreement or protest is not involvement, rather, it is resistance andassociated with lack of understanding.Organization members wait to have roles defined and decisions made, yetresent the regulating actions of authority.Involvement is the taking of sides: one is either ‘with’ (included) or ‘against’(excluded) the champion.

Illusion of The distinct benefits proffered to employees on the one hand (improvedcompatibility working conditions and increased control), and managers on the other

(increased productivity and diminished resistance) may be incompatible inpractice.

Outcome of The shortcomings of involvement can lead to ineffectual systems.participation Despite claims made on behalf of participation as a means to ensure success,

the research has shown very mixed results.

perspective, concerns which appear human centered can be seen for the instrumentalvalue they hold for managers. Management can reap the benefits of such an approachsince: commitment by all users increases the likelihood of success both of the systemand of the organization; enhanced communications and improved understanding ofuser requirements and work practices serve management interests by enhancing pros-pects for business success; and the involvement of employees can improve pro-ductivity and quality as they search for better solutions to the organization and com-pletion of tasks (Eccles, 1993).

Elsewhere, it has been argued that analysts pursue their interests indirectly in partby driving the development process and leading and coaching the users (Beath &Orlikowski, 1994). Yet, we cannot always assume that the systems developers willbe amenable to the idea of participation, seeing it, as they might, as “destabilising,undermining the consistency and rigour of development practices and storing upcompatibility and maintenance problems for the future” (Beirne et al., 1998, p. 152).This can result in users being given a relatively passive role to play despite heavy


emphasis on user involvement and users being expected to take responsibility forproject outcomes. These anomalies in participatory practices reflect contradictionsin the context within which development occurs and contrive to make the relationshipbetween users and systems development personnel problematic (Beath & Orlikowski,1994). Such contradictions are further intensified in participatory approaches sincethe latter do not seek to challenge the institutional context (divisions of labor, formsof control, locus of technological and work expertise, and allocation of resourcesand responsibilities) within which they are deployed.

Not surprisingly, then, the role of the systems developer, unfolding as it does inthe context of complex and conflictual organizational reality, presents them with anumber of problems. Gauging a sense of realistic outcomes, for example: “ requiresbroader attention to the dynamic context in which rationalistic inclinations and tend-encies are crosscut by mixed emotions and responses, prevailing conditions and con-tingent events.” (Beirne et al., 1998). In studying the role of the analyst, it is moreusual to focus on topics such as the oft-cited communication gap between users anddesigners; or the dominance/dependence relationship between analysts and users; orthe technical versus political orientation of the developers (Kumar & Welke, 1984;Lyytinen, 1988). However, in order to emphasize the highly contradictory nature ofthe everyday reality within which the systems developer is situated, here we havechosen to use the metaphor of Janus, a god in Roman mythology depicted with twoheads facing in opposite directions. In our case, the interests of management lie inone direction; those of the end-user in another. We have utilized the Janus analogyas a conceptual construct and as a way of imagining the paradoxes that the developermay face. This is achieved by examining their role in relation to the key paradoxesoutlined in Table 2, namely: Rhetoric of empowerment, Rhetoric of involvement,Exclusion of dissent, Illusion of compatibility, and Outcome of participation. Thisprocess gives prominence to a set of specific paradoxes as stated in the text below.

4.1. Rhetoric of empowerment

Here, we employ a deconstruction strategy to emphasize the dissonance betweenthe rhetoric of empowerment used to enrol potentially hostile end-users and the actu-ality of that process. A paradox that arises from the wielding of the term‘empowerment’ is that managers can employ a variety of tactics to enrol employeesin the process of participation, with no intention of genuine influence sharing. Marchand Simon (1958) argue that ‘ felt participation’ is an important variable and theysee this as being equivalent to genuine participation. For management, ‘creating afeeling’ of participation is the easy option. It offers a ‘win–win’ situation, givingthem the alleged advantages of participation whilst they hold on to their power andcontrol (Heller et al., 1998). It enables them to promote an image of themselves asa progressive, human-centered manger, whilst at the same time reducing resistanceto change and hopefully improving productivity along the way. As Eccles (1993, p.20) pointedly remarks, the best new thing about empowerment is the word itself“which is so positive that it has enabled managers to embrace old, well-known, moreproductive, ways of managing which had previously languished.” It has been noted


that the rhetoric of corporate restructuring builds on the concepts of workerempowerment, and “employs the methods of user participation to legitimate newpolitical regimes within organizations” (Asaro, 2000, p. 259).

Indeed, Neumann (1989) formulates rhetoric as a cause of employee resistance.He explains that rhetoric plays a role in that resistance because of the creation of‘mixed messages’ and ‘double binds’ on the part of management. These appear ascontradictions to the employees who respond by not complying with the demandsmade by management. Meanwhile, in relation to the use of rhetoric by systems devel-opers, whilst there are different motivations for employing user participationmethods, in attempting to enrol the end-user, the human-centered design aspects ofuser participation are more likely to be emphasized. The promise of empowermentis to give employees more power to use their judgment and discretion in their work,thereby encouraging them to utilize their skills and experience for the benefit of theorganization. On the face of it, this may seem appealing, especially to those whoexperience alienation as a daily reality:7 Despite the inherent contradictions we haveoutlined, this goes some way to explaining why compliance is achieved in many situ-ations.

Paradox 1: Since management can wield the participation tool in order to manipu-late end-users, the systems developers may find themselves in a contradictory pos-ition.

4.2. Rhetoric of involvement

Allied to the rhetoric of empowerment is the rhetoric of involvement, intended toenrol the users, and incorporating notions such as decision making, democracy, andrepresentation — all of which are said to lead to improved job satisfaction. Thus,participation provides what Industrial Relations people call ‘voice’ , seen as key toinfluence sharing. Part of the rhetoric of human-centered systems design involvesstatements concerning increased democracy for employees. Both of these rely on anassumption of the possibility of equality (within otherwise hierarchical organizations)which may in fact be unattainable because of the unequal distribution of skillscapacity and political capacity.

On the issue of skills equity, the ETHICS methodology, for example, relies onmembers of the design team to determine the balance between technical options andhuman needs. The context thus enacted is one in which some are designated technicalexperts and others designated consumers of technical expertise (Beath & Orlikowski,1994). It may well be the case that the more technically oriented participants veertowards technical solutions to social problems (especially since technical fixes areoften seen as the easier option since human conflict is often more problematic thantechnical problems). Given the likelihood of an uneven distribution of skills it isprobable that the expert users (that is, technically competent end-users) will come

7 For an excellent and detailed discussion on rhetoric, see O’Connor (1995).


to dominate because control over technical resources is tied to structures of power,meaning, and norms (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991; Bloomfield & Best, 1992).

In a treatment of rhetoric not antithetical to the examination of paradoxes from acritical perspective we are pursuing in this paper, Beath and Orlikowski (1994) per-form a deconstruction of Information Engineering which is informative for our dis-cussion on skills equity. Their deconstruction shows how the text is ambiguous con-cerning who is really ‘ in charge’ of systems development. For although users mayhave the organizational knowledge required, it is information systems personnel whodo the thinking and the designing. Thus, the possible educational disadvantages suf-fered by employees which mitigate against their ability to fully participate could becrucial, yet is frequently ignored in participatory approaches (a notable exceptionbeing Wagner, 1993). Despite the potential shortcomings in end-user ability to par-ticipate fully in the process, they will nevertheless be expected to comply with thesign-off process undertaken by management. Given their lack of skills, this com-plicity may hide outstanding insecurities with the project, yet these end-users aresimultaneously expected to take responsibility for the system and all its limitations.Beath and Orlikowski (1994) stress that whilst proponents of participatory practicesmay advocate strong user engagement, in reality the systems developers have almostcomplete control over the development process, with users playing a passive role.Yet, towards the end of the development cycle, users are expected to be responsibleand accountable for the outcomes of the process. This may explain, partly, why aredesign of systems is often undertaken with users ‘after the fact’ of design byexperts, even though this is often well hidden (Beirne et al., 1996).

Paradox 2: Due to barriers of uneven and insufficient skills users may becomepassive assistants yet will also bear the responsibility for correct and complete pro-ject outcomes.

As Asaro (2000) has pointed out, difficulties have been encountered whenusers/workers and design experts try to participate as ‘ intelligent and capable equals’ .Thus, in addition to skills inequity, possibilities for accurate representation anddemocracy are further compromised since end-users may not feel ‘politically safe’in articulating their needs. This has implications for the systems developer in theirendeavor to enrol end-users. Newman and Noble (1990) tell us that systems develop-ment critically depends on effective learning processes involving users and designers.So, whilst a substantial investment is required in creating the appropriate experienceand training in order to overcome skills inequity8, the problem of political inequalityis a more intractable problem, since it is difficult to conceive how end-users wouldbe trained in political expertise and given the wile to make meetings work for them.

Further, political inequality is evident when we consider that the boundaries ofchoice are controlled by management in the first instance, since employees do notnecessarily choose: (a) whether or not to participate; (b) the participation method-

8 One way of providing the know-how is to give employee representatives the right to engage skilledconsultants, as occurs in Norway, Sweden and Germany, but evidence suggests that skill development tosupport participation has received little attention (Heller et al., 1998).


ology itself; (c) their level of participation and the degree to which this influencesthe decision-making process; (d) which employees will be selected/nominated forthe participatory process, or (e) whether reorganization is desirable in the first place.However, a critical perspective suggests that the real devolution of power whichwould be entailed should these notions be realized would pose a substantial threatto managerial positions and authority. As a result, many of the promises made toend-users on behalf of the system could turn out to be hollow. The actual experienceof working within choices whose boundaries are drawn by management will allowemployees to see precisely who is or is not empowered.

Paradox 3: Due to inequitable power distributions in organizations the ideal ofauthentic participation may be highly compromised and may lead to user resistanceto/rejection of the developed system.

4.3. Exclusion of dissent

In this section we want to examine the implications for the systems developer ofthe fact that boundaries delineating the participation process are drawn, in advance,by management, and that dissent is excluded by these practices and the process ofselecting representatives. The issue of exclusion of dissent relates closely to that of‘pseudo’ involvement. The reason why involvement is inauthentic is because itincludes only compliant users. However, one possibility of revealing this exclusion,according to Eccles (1993), is to see what happens when so-called empoweredemployees want to do things with which the management fundamentally disagrees.The implication here is that such activity would be circumscribed or ‘outlawed’ ,leaving the user increasingly burdened without any resources to solve problems. Thisis all too frequently the case in worker participation, where responsibility is delegateddownwards whilst a share of decision-making for employees remains a ‘pipe dream’(Ehn, 1992).

Techniques of exclusion of dissent have been dealt with in relation to technologicalinnovation in Social Studies of Science (see Pinch & Bijker, 1984) where thoseopposed to a technical ‘solution’ are made ‘other’ by supporters of the technology.Similarly, O’Connor (1995) has noted that involvement consists of taking sides,either with (included) or against (excluded) the champion. In this situation it is easyto see why dissent in the context of user participation is doubly difficult, given therhetoric of ‘enlightened’ management techniques. One typical way of treating resist-ance is to attribute it to a lack of understanding on the part of the end-user who isdeemed not to be able to ‘see the benefits’ of the information system.

Paradox 4: Despite attempts to exclude dissent, it is likely to continue and evenfester beneath the surface, resulting in a lack of commitment (if not outrightresistance) to the system on the part of the dissenters.

4.4. Illusion of compatibility

In relation to the view of organizations as a site of conflict, when enrolling themanagers as users, the developers direct themselves towards distinct sets of concerns.


Whereas in dealing with end-users they had to attend to humanitarian issues, nowincrease in job satisfaction is not seen as an end in itself, but rather a means bywhich managers may increase productivity and reduce personnel problems. Put dif-ferently, this is due to the primacy of value production over human production(Braverman, 1974; Ramos, 1981; Spencer, 2000). From a critical perspective, there-fore, humanistic motives cannot be reconciled with the drive to produce commodities.Hence, a high level of participation may be desirable (especially if the new systemwill reduce skilled work) insofar as it will reduce levels of absenteeism and staffturnover whilst improving efficiency. Another motive for managers when employinguser participation methods is that the technique offers vindication for unpopular acts.This is paralleled in the adoption of Japanese work practices, which “had a noticeableindirect effect by arming British employers with a powerful vocabulary with whichto justify their actions” (Geary, 1995, p. 387).

This sheds light on the instrumentalism that motivates managers when encouragingworker participation:

The motives are instrumental rather than heroic, as management respond to theneeds of the business when they realise that their employees have rich and varied,if incoherently organized and underused, insights and experiences. To inflate thesepractical features into a grandiose crusade of power re-distribution does little ser-vice to the merits of empowerment because, in practice, its limitations are oftenall too obvious. (Eccles, 1993, p. 13)

Paradox 5: Since managers’ motives cannot be taken on face value, a dissimul-ation arises between promises to end-users about improved working conditions andthe potential for increased exploitation. This may lead to the systems developer beingplaced in a compromising position and expected to continue the facade of so-calledhumanistic concerns.

4.5. Outcome of participation

The incompatibilities described above are likely to have a bearing on the outcomeof the participatory process. As we have seen, whilst from a humanistic perspectiveparticipation enhances personal dignity, from a managerial perspective it serves thepurpose of reducing frustration, encouraging commitment and motivation and therebycurtails the need for employees to grasp some measure of power through fightingmanagement and restricting production (Strauss, 1998). Yet, the insincerity of thissort of participation is likely to be unearthed by employees and will inevitably leadto conflict (Etzioni, 1969). Not surprisingly, then, this disillusionment with partici-pation has been widely observed and can be traced to ‘pseudo’ or inauthentic workerparticipation (Etzioni, 1969; Argyris, 1970; Hopwood, 1976); or, in the case of infor-mation systems, symbolic or ineffective engagement of end-users (Robey & Markus,1984; Hirschheim & Newman, 1991). Given that employees are unlikely to contradicta person who is in a more powerful situation than themselves, disagreements arelikely to simmer beneath the surface.


A corollary to the observation of power to make decisions is that the view thatdevelopers are given of the organization will be from the vantage point of a managerand so further incompatibilities arise during consultations with end-users. The issueof who speaks for the organization and its workings is mirrored by a concern raisedby Jayaratna (1994) in relation to ETHICS. This methodology refers to organizationalneeds, yet organizations do not have needs per se. In fact, the needs and objectiveswhich are said to stand for the organization as a whole are in reality formulated bypowerful groups in the organization.

4.5.1. Inadequate/incomplete specificationsThe implications for the systems developers of the boundaries being drawn by

management are that, in the first instance, it is unlikely that end-users will be thesponsors of the system and thus will be consulted in the decision as to whether ornot to embark on a systems development project. This lack of involvement at themost crucial stage may result in underlying tensions once the project is underway,particularly if there is a suspicion that the project will result in redundancies. Inaddition, it is both assumed and required that systems developers operate withinand maintain these boundaries drawn by management, to whom they are ultimatelyaccountable. This has implications for design and the process of requirements gather-ing since it may well be the case, that rather than the end-users being given a voiceto tell how they do their job, managers may prescribe how they think the job shouldbe done.

The Janus developer, in facing end-users, is also presented with the difficultyarising from the latters’ lack of necessary skills. The implication here is that lesstechnically confident end-users will not be fully engaged and unspoken feelings ofincompetence and resentment may persist. This could lead to a situation where end-users tolerate anomalies that may prove crucial to the systems success or failure,believing the problem lies with themselves.

4.5.2. Non-realization of rhetoric: disillusionment, disappointment, and resistanceSystems developers are encouraged to engage in making promises on behalf of

the system to distinct parties on either side of the organizational conflict—promisesthat are potentially contradictory and incompatible. Hence, some promises cannot berealized and are de-prioritized at the expense of others. Given the inequality of powerdistribution in organizations, it is probable that managers’ concerns will receive mostattention. This is because, evidently, failure to meet with the approval of those inpowerful positions will automatically close off possibilities of a new system. On theother hand, for the systems developer, the needs of the employees cannot be ignoredif they are to be successfully enrolled in user participation. Failure to do so wouldcompromise the goal of overcoming resistance. Whilst this would not initially pre-clude the implementation, nevertheless it could ultimately result in rejection. Hence,for the systems developers, the conflictual nature of organizations has implicationsfor the resultant systems acceptance or non-acceptance. It would appear that disap-pointment—and potentially failure of the system—is contingent on people’s expec-tations of what the system can actually deliver (Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1987). In


order to enroll managers and employees as distinct sets of users, systems developershave to engage in different discourses and appeal to the concerns of each party.Hence, if developers have been involved in creating a partially idealistic view of thesystem—making promises by ‘selling’ the system to the users in their attempt toenroll them—then what happens when the system fails to live up to its promises?Surely, rejection by users is a likely result of disillusionment. When promises ofempowerment turn out to be merely tokenistic—that is, when rhetoric materializesas reality—in return for increased productivity or commitment on the part ofemployees, it is hardly surprising that disillusionment ensues. This resentment maywell be targeted at the information system and result in its ultimate failure.

Paradox 6: The unequal distribution of power, despite the rhetoric ofempowerment, could result in an inadequate view of the work carried out by mem-bers of the organization, and thus an inappropriate system.

4.6. The systems developer as Janus—a prisoner of paradoxes

Therefore, the systems developer is in a ‘no win’ situation, a prisoner of the para-doxes of the participation process. The response of end-users to a system that doesnot deliver on the promises made is likely to include overt or covert resistance(Marakas & Hornik, 1996). By contrast, it is the germination of this very resistancewhich is likely to disappoint managers, since its reduction is probably one of theirkey motivations. From the latter point of view, despite the hollowness of the promisesto end-users, managers may well consider that they have made grand concessionsto their subordinates and expect compliance in return.

As we have stated, the systems developer is potentially placed in the untenableposition of Janus, operating within a minefield of tensions and distinct motivations(whether they are conscious of them or not). When dealing with end-users, theirattention is focused on humanitarian concerns; yet when dealing with the instrumen-talism of management their motivations are those of improved efficiency, pro-ductivity, profit, and compliance. A facade of participation is created as the rhetoricof empowerment is wielded, without the real powerlessness of the end-users everbeing addressed. Hence, the possibility of symbolic or ‘pseudo’ participation. Sys-tems developers thereby are potentially compromised in enabling managers to, forexample, increase productivity and therefore the rate of exploitation under the guiseof empowering workers. The implications for systems outcomes have been described.

5. Conclusion

By employing a critical perspective in this paper we have deconstructed some ofthe more obvious pluralist assumptions, hidden by the dominant rational myths, toreveal the paradoxes encountered by systems developers in their contradictory Janusposition between two camps with distinct—potentially incompatible—motivationsand interest. Specifically, it has been argued that such contradictions are further inten-sified (thereby generating further paradoxes) in the participatory approaches since


they do not seek to challenge the institutional context (divisions of labor, forms ofcontrol, locus of technological and work expertise, and allocation of resources andresponsibilities) within which they are deployed.

This has several implications for research and practice which are as follows:

� First, for information systems researchers, rather than invest time and energy inthe search for new, improved methodologies, they should re-focus their attentionstowards developing a deeper understanding of the inherent conflict within thesystems development process. We would argue that far from being an intellectualdiversion, this constitutes a prerequisite for improving the rather poor record ofsystems development.

� Secondly, as Asaro (2000) has noted, systems designers need to be aware of thepotential applications of their work, even if they themselves have no ill intentions.For information systems developers, the above applies, but also their trainingshould encompass an appreciation of the essentially contestable nature of organi-zational relations (Knights & Murray, 1994). A broader view of structures beyondthe control of the developer could identify factors relevant to the problem situ-ation, yet normally considered to be beyond the parameters of a particular problemspecification. Failure to arm practitioners with a more realistic assessment of thedifficulties of systems development will undoubtedly increase the possibility ofself-recrimination and ‘scapegoating’ by others when systems do not live up toexpectations. Who knows, it is even possible that better systems could result.Besides, what have they got to lose?

� Last, but by no means least, for end-users in organizations, we would recommendthey think carefully about engaging in the participation process in the first place,by considering the objectives of the system (which may be other than those statedby the project sponsors) and its potential consequences on their working environ-ment and livelihoods. If they do decide to participate, we would also recommendthat they apply to the trade union to organize an alternative assessment of thesystems objectives and implications. In addition, the end-users should request thatthe union be called upon to act as a vehicle for the negotiation process in orderto help promote workers’ specific concerns.

But who could carry out such an alternative assessment? This last point brings usback to the implications for information systems researchers who, rather than acceptthe inherently managerialist agendas of successful systems development, have theoption of changing allegiance by making their expertise available to its potentialopponents.

Although we have not included a distinct section on empirical study, neverthelessthe discussion is based upon our own experiences across a multitude of roles—assystems developers, end-users, and researchers. The reason that we have chosen topresent the systems developer as a Janus figure, sandwiched between competinginterests with one wielding considerably more power than the other, is because thisparticular conceptualization has resonance with us. We leave it to future research toconfirm or deny the thesis we present here.


References

Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. Sage: London.Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (1996). Making sense of management: a critical introduction. Sage: London.Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: a behavioural science view. MA: Addison-Wesley.Asaro, P. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of partici-

patory design. Accounting Management and Information Technology, 10, 257–290.Baronas, A. K., & Louis, M. R. (1988). Restoring a sense of control during implementation: how user

involvement leads to system acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 12(1), 232–238.Beath, C. M., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). The contradictory structure of systems development method-

ologies: deconstructing the IS–user relationship in Information Engineering. Information SystemsResearch, 5(4), 350–377.

Beirne, M., Ramsay, H., et al. (1996). Participating informally: opportunities and dilemmas in user-drivendesign. Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Conference on Participatory Design, Cambridge, MA.

Beirne, M., & Ramsay, H. et al. (1998). Developments in computing work: control and contradictionin the software labour process. In P. Thompson, & C. Warhurst (Eds.), Workplaces of the future.Hampshire: Macmillan.

Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1995). User Participation and Democracy: A Discussion of ScandinavianResearch on System Development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 73–98.

Bjerknes, G., & Ehn, P. et al. (1987). Computers and democracy — a Scandinavian challenge. Alder-shot: Avebury.

Bloomfield, B. P., & Best, A. (1992). Management consultants, systems development, power and thetranslation of problems. Sociological Review, 40(3), 533–560.

Boland, R. J., & Pondy, L. R. (1983). Accounting in organizations: a union of natural and rational perspec-tives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8, 223–234.

Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century.New York: Monthly Review Press.

Burgoyne, J., & Reynolds, M. (1997). Managing learning, integrating perspectives in theory and practice.London: Sage.

Burroway, M. (1985). The politics of production: factory regimes under capitalism and socialism. Lon-don: Verso.

Camel, E., & Whitaker, R. et al. (1993). PD and joint application design: a transatlantic comparison.Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 40–48.

Cavaye, A. L. M. (1995). User participation in system development revisited. Information and Manage-ment, 28, 311–323.

Ciborra, C. U. (Ed.). (2000). From control to drift. Oxford University Press.Clement, A., & Besselaar, P. D. (1993). PD and joint application design; a transatlantic comparison.

Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 40–47.Davis, G. B., & Olsen, M. H. (1985). Management information systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: developments in communication

and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12(2),

259–274.Eccles, T. (1993). The deceptive allure of empowerment. Long Range Planning, 26(6),Ehn, P. (1992). Scandinavian design: on participation and skill. In P. S. Adler, & T. A. Winograd (Eds.),

Usability: turning technologies into tools. New York: Oxford University Press.Etzioni, A. (1969). Man and society: the inauthentic condition. Human Relations, 22, 325–332.Fox, A. (1973). Industrial relations: A social critique of pluralist ideology. In J. Child (Ed.), Man and

organization. New York: Allen & Unwin.Franz, C. R., & Robey, D. (1984). An investigation of user-led systems design: rational and political

perspectives. Communications of the ACM, 27(12), 1202–1209.Geary, J. (1995). Work practices: the structure of work. Industrial relations: theory and practice in Britain.

P. Edwards.


Heller, F., & Pusic, E. et al. (1998). Organizational participation: myth and reality. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1988). Information systems and user resistance: theory and practice.The Computer Journal, 31(5), 398–408.

Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1991). Symbolism and information systems development: myth, meta-phor and magic. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 29–62.

Hopwood, A. (1976). Accounting and human behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Jayaratna, N. (1994). Understanding and evaluating methodologies. London: McGraw-Hill.King, W. R., & Lee, T. (1991). The effects of user participation on systems success: toward a contingency

theory of user satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Sys-tems, New York.

Knights, D., & Murray, F. (1994). Managers divided. Chichester: Wiley.Kumar, K., & Welke, R. J. (1984). Implementation failure and system developer values: assumptions,

truisms and empirical evidence. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on InformationSystems, Tuscon, AZ.

Land, F. (2000). Evaluation in a socio--technical context. In R. Baskerville, J. Stage, & J. I. DeGross(Eds.), Organizational and social perspectives on information technology (pp. 115–126). Boston:Kluwer Academic.

Land, F., & Hirschheim, R. (1983). Participative systems design: rationale, tools and techniques. Journalof Applied Systems Analysis, 10, 91–107.

Lawler, E. E. (1993). Creating the high-involvement organization. In J. R. Galbraith, E. E. Lawler, & A.Associates (Eds.), Organizing for the future: the new logic for managing complex organizations (pp.172–193). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewis, P. (1994). Information systems development. Pitman Publishing.Lyytinen, K. (1987). Different Perspectives on Information Systems: Problems and Solutions. ACM Com-

puting Surveys, 19(1), 5–46.Lyytinen, K. (1988). Expectation failure concept and systems analysts view of IS failures: results of an

exploratory study. Information & Management, 14, 45–56.Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. (1987). Information systems failures—a survey and classification of the

empirical literature. Oxford Surveys in Information Technology, 4, 257–309.Marakas, G. M., & Hornik, S. (1996). Passive resistance misuse: overt support and covert recalcitrance

in IS implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 5, 208–219.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. et al. (1993). The influence of managerial relations on waves of

employee involvement. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 553–576.Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6),

430–444.Mintzberg, H. (1980). The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Muller, M. J. (1992). Retrospective on a year of participatory design using the PICTIVE technique.

CHI’92.Mumford, E. (1983). Designing human systems—the ETHICS method. Manchester: Manchester Busi-

ness School.Mumford, E. (1995). Effective systems design and requirements analysis. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Mumford, E. (1997). The reality of participative systems design: contributing to stability in a rocking

boat. Information Systems Journal, 7, 309–322.Mumford, E., & Weir, M. (1979). Computer systems in work design—the ETHICS method. New York:

John Wiley.Neumann, J. E. (1989). Why people don’ t particpate in organizational change. In R. W. Woodman, & W.

A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (p. 3). Greenwich: JAI Press.Newman, M., & Noble, F. (1990). User involvement as an interaction process. Information Systems

Research, 1(1), 89–113.Noble, D. (1984). Forces of production: a social history of industrial automation. New York: Knopf.Nygaard, K., & Sorgaard, P. (1987). The perspective concept in informatics. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, &

M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy. Aldershot: Avebury.


O’Connor, E. S. (1995). Paradoxes of participation: textual analysis and organizational change. Organiza-tion Studies, 16(5), 769–803.

Olson, M., & Ives, B. (1981). User involvement in systems design: an empirical test of alternativeapproaches. Information and Management, 4(4), 183–196.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations.Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143–169.

Pfeffer, J. F. (1981). Power in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artifacts. Social Studies of Science,

14, 399–441.Ramos, A. G. (1981). The new science of organizations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Robey, D., & Markus, M. L. (1984). Rituals in information systems design. MIS Quarterly, 8(1), 5–15.Robey, D., & Smith, L. et al. (1993). Perceptions of conflict and success in information systems develop-

ment projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(1), 123–139.Saarinen, T., & Saaksjarvi, M. (1990). The missing concepts of user participation — an empirical assess-

ment of user participation and information system success. Scandinavian Journal of Information Sys-tems, 2, 25–42.

Spencer, D. (2000). Braverman and the contribution of labour proces analysis to the critique of capitalistproduction — twenty-five years on. Work, Employment & Society, 14(2), 223–243.

Strauss, G. (1998). An overview. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G. Strauss, & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Organizationalparticipation: myth and reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thompson, P. (1983). The nature of work: an introduction to debates on the labour process. London: Mac-millan.

Wagner, I. (1993). Participatory conversation in PD. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 93.Westrup, C. (1999). Knowledge, legitimacy and progress? Requirements as inscriptions in information

systems development. Information Systems Journal, 7, 35–54.Wilkinson, B., & Morris, J. et al. (1995). The iron fist in the velvet glove: management and organization

in Japanese manufacturing transplants in Wales. Journal of Management Studies, 32(6),Willmott, H. (1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern organizations.

Journal of Management Studies, 24, 248–270.Winograd, T. (1996). Bringing design to software. Addison-Wesley.Winner, L. (1985). Do artifacts have politics? In D. MacKenzie, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping

of technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.Wong, E. Y. W., & Tate, G. (1994). A study of user participation in information systems development.

Journal of Information Technology, 9, 51–60.Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 43, 602–636.

Documents

Paradoxes of participatory practices: the Janus role of the systems developer