From individual action to collective activity and back: developmental work research as an interventionist methodology

Abstract

Having emerged as an individual exception from the rule in the labour of one or several men, the new form is then taken over by others, becoming in time a new universal norm. If the new norm did not originally appear in this exact manner, it would never become a really universal form, but would exist merely in fantasy, in wishful thinking. (Ilyenkov, 1982: 83–4) Introduction Since the 1980s, ethnographic and cognitive studies of work have taken important steps forward. Powerful micro-level methodologies and theories, such as ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and distributed cognition, have been developed. However, a nagging question sometimes arises (e.g. Hughes et al. , 1993; Rogers, 1997): what difference do these studies make in practice? In this vein, Grudin and Grinter (1995) write about ‘the ethnographers’ deep professional bias against intervention'. Although ethnographers know that introducing technology disrupts work, they are not trained to invent organizations, to assess the costs of change, or to determine the likelihood of successful adoption. And even change that some would regard as positive might be questioned by ethnographers. (Grudin and Grinter, 1995: 56–7) After examining the problem in some detail, Rogers (1997) draws the following conclusion: Rather than always take a backseat role, researchers need to become more proactive in their involvement with the people and objects of their study. This means engaging more in an ongoing dialogue with the various groups of people working or designing together (i.e., the users, the managers, and the designers). Researchers should stop shying away from being involved. […]

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 158 citations exist upstream.