The conceptual and theoretical basis of EUSSET

Volkmar PipekUniversity of Siegen

Dave RandallUniversity of Siegen

The conceptual and theoretical basis of EUSSET

Current problem:

•Competition between perspectives, not cooperation.

Two broadly opposite tendencies

•The ‘high level’ approach

•The detailed case study approach

The ‘high level’ approach

•Activity theory; Dcog; ANT; structuration theory and any other off-the shelf theory impose conceptual structures on data.

•Their starting point is so high level as to be useless for design-related purposes

From your Ivory TowerYou will see how it really must beTo be like me to see like meTo feel like me

When you come downFrom your Ivory TowerYou will see how it really must beTo be like me to see like meTo feel like me (with apologies to van Morrison)

The result:

Breathtaking vacuity.

•User; design; domain; user-centred design; practice; community of practice; situatedness; context; tool; socio-technical system; insert as you see fit

•What is the contrast class in these terms?

The detailed case study approach

• Characterised by e.g. ethnomethodology

• Solid, detailed work but provides no means for generalisation (except in limited ways)

• At least 8 studies of Air Traffic Control

• At least 800 studies of electronic patient records

• Don't you want me baby? Don't you want me ohDon't you want me baby? Don't you want me oh (with apologies to the Human League)

The third way- the participative approach

• How would users conceptualise outside of their own domain (or their own office)?

• What will designers work on in addition to ‘users’?

• How will we deal with heterogeneous roles and functions within a domain (especially large- scale and now ultra- large domains)?

Some real complaints from designers (and managers)…

•Ethnographies are too narrowly focused on the ‘problems’ and tend to emphasise the dramatic.

•Can lead to oversimplified design conclusions.

•A problem of analytic and representational imagination ....

• Ethnographies are too technology focused

• When was the last time you saw a CSCW study which resulted in a ‘no new technology’ solution?

• We pay lip service to ‘socio- technical’ but seldom examine what that means in detail

• We have only scratched the surface of the ‘representation’ problem

• Designers don’t know what to make of the results ...

• We don’t know how to evaluate ‘success’ ...

• Similarities and differences

• Analytic and representational strategies can deal with both

• But only if we understand and can clarify our purposes

• Herbert Blumer

“It was really with the work of Herbert Blumer that ‘naturalistic’ enquiry became more rigorously counterposed to other methods. …

‘Naturalistic sociology’, for Blumer, must ‘respect the world’ rather than lurching into explanation long before it has adequate description. In other words, it involves the world as it actually is, rather than substituting a shorthand for it. As Matza (1969) later pointed out, such a commitment requires methods which can maintain loyalty to the world but does not, in itself, presuppose any particular methodological procedures. This is important, for it suggests that one of the problems with [sociology] is that it is too obsessed with method, and raises the possibility that interdisciplinary research can be the victim of the same over-methodical approach.”

• Herbert Blumer

“Blumer insists (1969) that through processes of ‘exploration’ and ‘inspection’, one can provide detailed descriptions of events and patterns of activity, and thus talk from fact rather than speculation. The point here, to reiterate, is that any technique, including observation, interviews, life histories, the study of official and personal documents and even ‘counting’ might turn out to be appropriate. It is as well to remember this, for it forestalls naive questions concerning whether one is ‘allowed’ to do certain things when undertaking ethnographic work. It, for instance, opens a space for ‘inspection’. Inspection, or thinking about what you’ve got, requires us to develop ‘sensitizing’ or ‘illuminating’ concepts. “

• WE HAVE A CORPUS OF STUDIES !!!! (we have explored ...)

• Unequally populated, yes

• Without any coherent ‘index’

• Conceptually promiscuous, yes

WHAT WILL INSPECTION LOOK LIKE?

1.PLANS

The distance between plans and actionThe power of formal proceduresBUT Understanding how ‘knowledge’ relates to this

2. ARTEFACTS

Beyond the deskArtefacts, coordination, paperworkArtefacts and information life cyclesBUT these artefacts are increasingly digital.

3. THE FLOW OF WORK

Awareness of WorkThe egological Skills and ExpertisesLocal knowledgeBUT how to relate such matters to the sheer pace of organisational and societal change

4 ‘NORMAL’, ‘NATURAL’ TROUBLES‘Here’s another one’Normal troubles and the avoidance of errorsBUT ‘design for unanticipated use (appropriation ) in destabilised domainsAND we haven’t yet found an adequate wat to deal with creativity.

• An example- safety critical work

• What are the similarities and differences between:

• Air traffic control• Emergency services work• Disaster management

• No, I don’t know either …

• Some dimensions … ?

• Monitoring vs control• Instructions vs advice (knowledge transfer)• Types of time criticality (second-by-second;

minute by minute; hour by hour; day by day)• Control rooms vs on the ground• Planned vs unplanned• Homogeneity vs heterogeneity

• No, I (still) don’t know either …

• High reliability

• ‘normal accidents’?

• The relevance of radical technology

• A pressing need …

• ‘sensitizing’ or ‘illuminating’ concepts (Blumer; Ackerman; Randall)

• Which are appropriate to purpose

• Which represent both the ‘emic’ and the ‘etic’

• Which are flexible and responsive to technological and social change

• Which recognise the complexity of domains (and their increasing instability)

• Which ‘future proof’

• What does this mean for design?

• Valueing studies: High delta in new fields, but…• E.g. Studies of IT use in social work• But: 312 studies on “Electronic patient record”: Where is the delta?

• Answering complexity: A deeper understanding of practice/ design space• Known question: How to improve what designers know about practice?• New question: How to improve what designers know about their design practice

as part of the “user’s” ongoing practice• From using theory to look “inside” from the “outside” to using theory from a

“being inside” perspective• Answering Pace of Change: Rapid response techniques are needed

• Rapidly evolving practice, changes through competing technologies/products, opportunity-driven studies

• Goals of studies: Informing a more reflective designer, informing a more reflective user

• Sustaining design• If user creativity continuously changes practice, how can design continuously

wield into that practice (“When” of design?)• Towards methodologies for “creative use”: Potentials of the increasingly

computer-literate user