Psychological research into cooperative work is still in its infancy as far as the emergence, usage, and extension of shared forms of thinking, special languages, and group-specific forms of action are concerned. What we have at present is a multitude of laboratory studies of small groups, and a growing number of field research reports like those in the other chapters of this book. Nearly all ethnographic studies that I am aware of have been done in the United States, Great Britain, or Scandinavia. I will not attempt a complete review of those studies here. Rather I shall aim first at explaining why this recent research looks new and exciting for many German readers, concentrating on the reasons for and the results of using qualitative methods, which is still quite unusual in German industrial psychology (but see Haug et al., 1987; Senghaas-Knobloch & Volmerg, 1990). Then I will go on to present a sketch of the concept of “semiotic self-regulation of groups.” After analyzing two paradigm cases for ethnographic work research, I offer some closing remarks about historical and possible future links between developmental work research (see Engestrom, 1987, and chapters by Engestrom and Norros, this volume) and the traditions variously called “naturalistic research,” “symbolic interactionism,” or “cognitive ethnography” (see Hammersley, 1989 for a short history). A first view of the ethnographic approach My first theme is to examine the applications of methods widely used in ethnology and cultural anthropology in psychological studies of the social regulation of work practices.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 70 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.