10 the wrong trousers? beyond the design fallacy: social ...€¦ · evolving user requirements....

10 Thewrongtrousers?Beyondthedesignfallacy:sociallearningandtheuser

JamesStewartandRobinWilliams

IntroductionThischapterreflectscriticallyuponhowasubstantialbodyofwritingsintechnologystudiesanduser-orientedcomputinghavesoughttoconceptualizedesign–andtheirtacitandexplicitpresumptionsaboutwhatiswrongwithtechnologydesign/developmentprocessesascurrentlypractised.1Manyof theseanalysesshareaparadoxicalviewof design:presentingontheonehandaratherheroicviewofdesignassuccessfullyembeddingarangeofexplicitpurposesandimplicitvalues(aviewwerefertoasthe‘designfallacy’),whileontheotherhanddemonizingdesignpracticesandoutcomes.Thechapterarguesthatthisaccountisinadequateandderivesfromaflawed‘design-centred’perspective–thatfocusesnarrowlyonparticulardesignepisodesandconceivestheseasleadingtofinishedsolutionstosocial/organizationalneeds.

Thechapterpresentsanalternativeviewof theroleof designinthedevelopmentofnewtechnologies,particularlyinrelationtonewinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICTs)thathaveemergedinthecourseoftheEuropeanSocialLearninginMultimedia(SLIM)researchproject.2Asociallearningperspectiveisoutlinedthatseesdesignoutcomes/supplierofferingsasinevitablyunfinishedinrelationtocomplexheterogeneousandevolvinguserrequirements.Furtherinnovationtakesplaceasartefactsareimplementedandused.Tobeusedanduseful,ICTartefactsmustbe‘domesticated’andbecomeembeddedinbroadersystemsofcultureandinformationpractices.Inthisprocess,artefactsareoftenreinventedandfurtherelaborated(‘innofusion’).

Thesociallearningperspective(Ripetal.1995)analysesparticulardesignepisodesaslocatedwithinlonger-termprocessesof innovationacrossmultiplecyclesoftechnologydesignandimplementation.Itoffersanevolutionarymodelof howsocietalrequirementsandtechnologicalcapabilitiesmightbecoupledtogether.Althoughconceptsofevolutionandoflearningmayconveyasenseofsmoothandseamlessinteraction,ouranalysispointstothecomplexandoftendifficultinteractionbetweenthem,offeringananalyticalframeworkthatismoreopen(i)tothenecessarily

195

Howcroft 02 chap05 195 1/6/05 11:43:37 am

196 Handbookofcriticalinformationsystemsresearch

incompletenatureof thedesignprocess;(ii)totheunpredictabilityofoutcomes;and(iii)tothemultiplicityofactorsandsitesofinnovation.

The design-centred perspective in technology studies

AproblematicintellectualinheritancefromearlytechnologystudiesTheissueof designwascentraltotheemergenceof technologystudiesasanareaof debateandfieldof study.Startingfromanassessmentofnewlyemergingtechnologiesthatfocusedupontheundesirablesocialandenvironmentalimplications,criticalsocio-economicanalysismovedontoask‘whatwasgivingrisetotechnologiesthatwerehavingtheseeffects?’;critiqueswereadvancedofthedominantformoftechnologiesdeveloped(MacKenzieandWajcman1985).Forexample,the‘socialshapingoftechnology’perspective sought to investigate the choices inherent intechnologicaldesignanddevelopmentandhowthesewereinfluencedbythevariousvaluesandinterestsinvolved.Thearchetypal‘socialshaping’studybyNoble(1979)pointedtotheexplicitintentionsofthedevelopers(ofautomatedmachinetools),andthesuppressionofonetechnology(recordplayback)infavourofanother(numericalcontrol).Asimilarconceptionofthesignificanceofdesignunderpinnedtheespousalbysociallyconcernedengineersofalternativeapproachestotechnologicaldesign(forexample,inideasofhuman-centredtechnologiesandparticipatorydesign;seeEhn1988).Inmuchoftheseearlywritingsweseean‘essentialist’account(Wajcman1991)oftherelationshipbetweentechnologyandsocialvalues,inwhichthedesignoftheartefactisamoreorlesssimplereflectionofthevaluesandprioritiesofdesignersanddevelopers–valueswhichareassumedtobereproduced(oratleastfavoured;seeWinner1980)whentheseartefactsaredeployedandused.Inthisview,consumersareseenaspassiverecipientsofthetechnologyanditsembeddedvalues(Sørensen1994).Althoughcriticalofthesubstanceofdesign,thisviewseestechnologydesign/developmentasastraightforwardvehicleforsocialvaluesandintentions.

Thesubsequentdevelopmentofempiricalresearchandanalysishascalledthisviewintoquestion.Recognitionoffrequentfailuresintechnologicaldevelopment,of unintendedtechnicalandsocialoutcomes,andof thecomplexityof social interactionsaroundthedevelopmentanduseoftechnology(andinparticularoftheinfluenceuponinnovationprocessesofintermediateandfinal‘users’ofanartefact)hascalledfortherevisionofvariouselementsofthissimplisticmodel(SørensenandWilliams2002).However,wesuggestthatprevalentsocialshapingandconstructivistanalysesofdesignstillbeartheimprintoftheirpastintellectualinheritance.Wepointtothecontinuationofaviewofdesignthattacitlyretainssomemodernistpresumptions,intermsofanessentialistandsomewhatmechanisticview

Howcroft 02 chap05 196 1/6/05 11:43:37 am

Beyondthedesignfallacy:sociallearningandtheuser 197

ofhowvaluesandpreferencesmaybecomeembeddedindesignandmaybereproducedwhenthoseartefactsaresubsequentlyconsumed/used.Suchaviewwouldappeartobeinformedbya‘linear’ratherthan‘interactive’modelof innovation,andconveysmore thanahintof technologicaldeterminism.Inparticular,wearguethatmuchofthisanalysisshareswhatwehavedescribedasa‘heroicview’of design,whichatthesametimedemonizesengineers.Itisheroicinthesensethatdesignsareportrayedasfinishedproductsinscribingparticularviewsoftheuser,useractivitiesandprioritiesintotheartefact.The‘designproblem’isthenconceivedintermsofthefailingsofdesignpractitioners–throughignoranceofusers(theirpurposesandcontexts)ortheircommitmenttodifferentpriorities–embeddingthewrongvalues/specificationofuserrequirementsindesign,withimputedseriousnegativeconsequencefortheusabilityanduseofthoseartefactsforparticularpurposesandbyparticulargroups.Weshallreturntothisargumentaboutthesocio-economicanalysisof design.Butfirst,weshallexamine,undertherubricof‘thedesignfallacy’theimplicationsfordesignpractice.

ThedesignfallacyAnimportantlineof critiqueof designpracticehascentredaroundtheperceivedfailureofICTofferingstomatchthecultureandrequirementsofusersandinparticularofthe‘finalusers’whomustoperatethesystem.Failingsofnewlydevelopedsystemswereattributedtotheshortcomingsofdominant‘technocratic’designapproaches,andthedifficultiesexperiencedbycomputerscientistsandengineersincapturinguserrequirements;totheirnarrow,functionalistunderstandingsof thetasksbeingautomatedandtheirlackofunderstandingoftheintricatecultureandspecificpracticesof thevarioususersof informationsystems;andtotheconsequentgulf betweendesignedsystemsandthecircumstancesandpracticesofthevariousgroupsof potentialandactualusers.Traditionalrequirementscapturetechniques,whichemergedfromthesuccessfulautomationof routinerecord-processingtasksinearlycommercialcomputing,couldnotreadilybeappliedtomorecomplexactivitiesinvolvingtheexerciseofjudgementandinnovelapplicationswhereuserrequirementswerenotreadilyspecified.Requirementscaptureisapotentiallydifficultproblembecausetheneedsofvariouscurrentandpotentialusers,andthemeansbywhichtheymaybefulfilled,arenotfixedentities,butevolve,partlyinthefaceofnewtechnicalcapabilitiesandpractices.Inthefaceoftheseperceivedproblems,arangeof user-centreddesigninitiativeswaslaunchedwhichsoughttodevelopricherunderstandingsofthecontextandpurposesoftheuserandbuildthemintotechnologydesign.Newdesignmethodologiesandmodelswereproposed.Oftenuser-centreddesigninvolvedthedeploymentof social

Howcroft 02 chap05 197 1/6/05 11:43:38 am


scientistsalongsidetechnologydeveloperstostudyusercontextsortobringuserrepresentativesintothedesignprocessdirectly.Someinterestingworkhasbeendone(see,forexample,Ehn1988;BødkerandGreenbaum1992;Greenetal.1993).

Howeverwithhindsight,thesekindsofprojectseemtohavehadonlymodestinfluenceoversystemdesignoverall,andsomeseriousquestionscanberaisedabouttheireffectiveness–mostimmediatelyinrelationtotheuptakeandwiderapplicabilityofmodelsthatemergedfromuser-centreddesigninitiatives.Morefundamentally,itcanbenotedthatsuchinitiativesfailedtogeneratedistinctivelydifferentmodelsof artefactfromthoseemergingfromconventionaldesignsettings.3

Whiletheshifttowardsuser-centreddesignrepresentsasignificantandpositivedevelopment,weneedtoavoidthepitfallsofwhatwehavetermedthe‘designfallacy’:thepresumptionthattheprimarysolutiontomeetinguserneedsistobuildevermoreextensiveknowledgeaboutthespecificcontextandpurposesof varioususersintotechnologydesign.Inlargedegree,theshortcomingsof thisviewarisebecausetheemphasisonthecomplexity,diversityandthusspecificityof‘userrequirementsandcontexts’(andtheconsequentimportanceof localknowledgeabouttheuser)istakenupwithinanessentiallylinear,design-centredmodelofinnovationtoemphasizetheneedforartefactstobedesignedaroundthelargelyuniquecultureandpracticesofparticularusers.Byseeingcomputerartefacts,oncedesigned,aslargelyfixedintheirproperties,andthusprivilegingpriordesign(ProcterandWilliams1996),thekeyquestionbecomesoneof buildingevermoreextensiveamountsofknowledgeaboutthecontext,cultureandpurposesofusersintothedesignedsystem.

Followingonfromthis,socio-economicresearch,andinparticularethnographicstudiesof userswereproposedtoidentifytheright valuesandovercomethedesignproblem,bycapturingtheincreasingamountsofknowledgeaboutspecificgroupsofusersandtheirpurposes,practicesandthusrequirementsthatcouldbeincorporatedintothedesignoftheartefact.Ethnographicandinparticularethnomethodologicalapproacheswereadvancedasbeinguniquelysuitedtoaddressingtheintricacyofspecificcontextsandpractices–identifyingthecrucialdifferencesanddistinctionsthatconventionalrequirementscapturetechniqueswouldalltooeasilyoverlook(Anderson1997).Althoughthispointgoessomewhatbeyondthescopeofthecurrentchapter,itcanbeobservedthatthereareobviouslimitationstotheroleofethnographyasamethodforrequirementscapture.4Howeverethnographicapproachescouldbeusedinadditiontoorasanalternativeto ‘userparticipation’indesign–inwhichrepresentativesofvariouscurrentandpotentialuserscouldexpresstheirrequirementsfor

Howcroft 02 chap05 198 1/6/05 11:43:38 am


thenewsystemandcontributedirectlytorequirementsspecificationandtodesignanddevelopmentdecisions.

Rethinkingdesign–beyondthedesignfallacyThedesign-centredmodel,withitsexclusivepreoccupationwithpriortechnologicaldesign(‘thedesignfallacy’),canbecriticizedonanumberofgrounds:

• itisunrealisticandsimplistic;• itmaynotbeeffectiveinenhancingdesign/use;and• itoverlooksimportantopportunitiesforinterventionthatarerevealed,

forexample,if adesign-implementationlife-cyclemodelisadopted.

Inparticularweargueagainstthemodelofdesignasaninductiveprocessofaccumulatingevermoreinformationaboutcurrentuserrequirements.Recognitionof thecomplexityanddiversityof usersettingsdoesnotnecessarilyimplythattechnologicaldesignwillorshouldbeentirelyshapedaroundthedetailedneedsofparticularusers.

The constructivist theorization of design: its conceptualization of the user and use Acentralconcernforsocialshapingandconstructivistanalysesofdesignhasbeentoassesscriticallythewayinwhichcertainprioritiesandoutcomesmaybebuiltintotechnologydevelopmentandthereforemaybeadvantagedwhenthosetechnologiesareused(Winner1980).Inrelationtonewapplicationsof technology,analysishasrevolvedaroundthewayinwhichthefutureuseranduseofanartefacthasbeenconceived.Indeed,indesigninganddevelopinganartefact,somemodelisneededoftheanticipateduser,thewaysinwhichtheartefactwillbeusedandof thesocialandtechnicalcontextinwhichusewilltakeplace.Designersdonotsimplydevelopanartefact–theymustinevitablyalsodevelopsomeconceptoftheusecontextandlifestyle(vanLieshoutetal.2001).Theserepresentations(Vedel1994)oftheuser/usemaybemoreorlessspecific.

But how are these representations developed and implemented indesignedartefacts?If designisshapedbythevaluesandcontextinwhichtechnologiesaredeveloped,howarethesevaluesembedded,andhowcantheybeidentified?

Wearguethatsocialshapingandconstructivistanalyseshavetendedtoveer,implicitlyandperhapsunconsciously,towardsarather‘politicized’viewoftechnologicaldesignasbeingrichlyinformedbyasetof specificvaluesandpresumptionsfromthedevelopmentcontext,andinparticularbyspecificandquestionableconceptionsoftheuseranduse.

Howcroft 02 chap05 199 1/6/05 11:43:38 am


Noble’s(1979)machinetoolcasereferstoahighlypolarizedandvisiblecontext:theexplicitintentionsofthedevelopersofautomatedmachinetoolsaroundthechoiceofanoperatinginterfacethatofferedclear(apparentlyself-evident)implicationsfortheoutcomes–reducingtheroleof craftmachinists.Moresophisticatedmethodologiesandexplanatoryconceptsmaybeneededtograspdesignchoicesinothercontexts.

Importantinsightshaveemergedfromanalystswithrootsinsemioticanalysisanddiscoursetheory.ThusAkrich(1992a)andAkrichandLatour(1992)claimthatwemayinterprettheendeavoursofdesignersaseffortstoinscribecertainpreferredprogrammesofactionbyusers(whichAkrichdescribesas‘scripts’or‘scenarios’)inthedesignof agivenartefactortechnologicalsystem.Designersvisualizeascriptof preferredreactionstotheartefact,andtheytrytoshapethetechnologyinordertomakethesereactionsasmandatoryaspossible(Sørensen1996).Inasimilarvein,Woolgar(1991)describesdesignersasseekingto‘configuretheuser’–intermsofdefiningthecharacteristicsoftheuserandhowtheymayrespond.By‘settingparametersfortheuser’sactions’(ibid.:61),thebehaviouroftheuserisconfiguredbythedesignerandtheuserisdisciplinedbythetechnology.5Inthissense,thetechnology(andthedesigner)constructs‘theuser’.Thisconceptofconfiguringtheuserhasbeenwidelytakenup.

Abodyofworkhasemergedfromthisperspective(forexample,Woolgar1991;Akrich1992a,1992b).Muchof thisconveysaviewthatdesignincorporatesacomprehensiverepresentationof theintendedusers,theirpurposesandthecontextofuse.Theusermayberepresented,forexample,intermsof presumptionsinrelationtotheirskills,theiridentities(forexample,intermsofgender,seeCockburnandFurst-Dilic1994),orothersocialfeaturessuchasraceandclass)andtheactivitiesthatmaybeseenasappropriateandinappropriate.

Wearguethatthiskindof criticalanalysishasparadoxicallyoftenproducedarathersimplified,‘stylized’andoverpoliticizedaccountofhowthesocialcontextshapesthecontentof design(forexample,regardingwhichsocialvaluesandrelationshipsbecomeembeddedindesignandhow)–andcanthusreadilybe‘readoff ’bytheanalyst.Weidentifyatendency,whichwedescribeas‘narrativebias’,towardsaparticularkindofstoryabouttechnology.6Thefirstmoveinsuchananalysisis,typically,to identify the representation of the user underpinning a particulardesign/development.Thesecondmoveisthentoexaminewhethertheseareoften‘thewrongvalues’,basedonaninadequateormisleadingviewofusersandtheirrequirements.Thusresearchershavetendedtolookfortheproblemsthatmayarisewherethatrepresentationisrestrictiveoroutoflinewiththeactualusersthatariseorcanbeanticipatedtoarise.Onecommonexamplehighlightstheproblemsarisingwhereengineershave

Howcroft 02 chap05 200 1/6/05 11:43:38 am


reliedontheirpersonalexperiencesandpresumptionstoarticulatearatherunrepresentativemodeloftheuser(Akrich1995;Nicoll2000)–astrategywhichOudshoornandPinch(2003)havedescribed,followingAkrich(1995)asthe‘I-methodology’.

Itcanbenotedthatthesestudiesof ‘designersconfiguringtheuser’donot ingeneraladdressboththedesignandthe implementationofparticularartefacts.Therearemanyreasons for this–not least thatproductdevelopmentcyclestendtobelongerthanthelifetimeof mostsocialscienceresearchprojects.7Theimpactofdesignchoicesontheuseristhuslargelyimputed.

Wewouldsuggestthat,whendetailedempiricalanalysisof design/developmentsettingsisactuallyundertaken,itturnsouttoberatherhardtodiscernthesetsof objectivesandpresumptionsunderpinningdesign.Design/developmentchoicesaredominatedbythe‘takenforgranted’aspectsoftheinnovation–andbyaseriesofdesignchoicesthatwilltendtobejustifiedintechnicalorpragmaticterms.Indeed,designisrarelyconductedbyasingleactor,butemergesthroughamultiplicityofactorsininteractionwithvariousconcernsandagendasinrelationtoahostoffactors(price,technicalconstraints,interoperabilitystandardsandconceptsoftheusermarket).Designisoftendonebycommittee(orthroughmorecomplexarenas),workingtotightdeadlinesunderconditionsofconflictandaccommodation,yieldingcompromisesthatmaysatisfyno-one.Whatcanbe‘read’abouttheuserandthesettingofuseistypicallyunderspecified,fragmentary and inconsistent. And when the designed artefacts aresubsequentlyimplementedandused,thedesignpresumptionsarebynomeansexpressedinastraightforwardway.

Theimplicationintheideaof‘configuringtheuser’thatusersarerecipients,ofcourse,standsincontrastwithanother,increasinglyinfluential,streamofanalysiswhichemphasizesthe‘interpretiveflexibility’andchoicethatusersandothersareabletoexertregardingthemeaningsanduseofatechnology(PinchandBijker1984).Indeed,Latour,Akrichandotherwriters,fromadiscoursetheoreticbackground,seetechnologyasa‘text’thatiscapableofdifferentreadings(eventhoughtheirwritingsalsoconveyastrongsensethatthetechnologyinscribesapreferredreading).Agrowingbodyofrecentaccounts,influencedbydevelopmentsinculturalandconsumptionstudies,portrayconsumptionasanactiveandcreativeprocess(Sørensen1994).Theseemphasizethat,althoughthedesignermayseektoprefiguretheuser–andthusimplicitlytoconstrainthewaysinwhichtheproductisused–ultimatelyusersstillretainflexibilityregardingthemeaningstheyattributetotechnologies,andoverchoicesabouthowtheartefactwillbeappropriated.Wecapturetheseprocesses–andspecifically,thekeyprocessesofdomesticationandinnovation–withinthemoregeneralheadingofsocial

Howcroft 02 chap05 201 1/6/05 11:43:39 am


learning.Recognitionofsociallearningoffersaverydifferentviewofthecharacterandsignificanceofdesignactivities.

The social learning frameworkThesociallearningframeworkisproposedasanextensiontothesocialshaping of technology perspective that focuses in particular uponopportunitiesforreflexivepracticeinthedevelopmentof technologies.8Itdrawsuponconceptsfromthedevelopingevolutionarytraditionineconomicsandeconomichistorywhichhavelongrecognized‘learningcurves’:thegradualimprovementsthatoftenariseintheperformanceofatechnologyovertime.Arrow(1962)describedas‘learningbydoing’theideathatworkers,individuallyaswellascollectively,developmoreefficientwaysofemployingmachinerythroughtheirexperiencefromusage.Similarly,Rosenberg(1982)characterizesas‘learningbyusing’theprocessthroughwhichausergainsfamiliaritywithagivenpieceoftechnologyanddevelopsskillsinmakinguseofit.Theseconceptspointtothefactthatthepropertiesofatechnology(itsaffordancesandlimitations)maynotbeimmediatelyapparent,butarediscovered,learnedandenhancedthroughexperience,ofteninrelationtoparticularproductiveprocessesandactivities.AsSørensen(1996)putsit:

Sociallearningcanbecharacterisedasacombinedactofdiscoveryandanalysis,of understandingandgivingmeaning,andof tinkeringandthedevelopmentof routines.Inordertomakeanartefactwork,ithastobeplaced,spatially,temporally,andconceptually.Ithastobefittedintotheexisting,heterogeneousnetworksofmachines,systems,routines,andculture.

However, social learning is not limited to the site of technologyapplication(whatFleck1988adescribesasthe‘implementationarena’),importantthoughthisis.Suchlearningbydoingprovidesapotentiallyveryimportantsourceofinformationontheeffectiveuseofatechnology.Bygivingsuppliersaccesstowhatusershavelearnedabouttheirproductsandwhatdeficienciesandpotentialitiestheyhavediscovered,itcouldprovideinvaluableinformationforsubsequentproductinnovation.Ithasbeenfurthernotedthatthisinformationisoftennotsystematicallycollectedandused–perhapsbecauseofthestrengthoftherhetoricsoftechnologysupply(onthegroundsthat,if anewproductalreadyfulfilsuserrequirementsasclaimed,whatneedistheretoexaminetheproblemsthatmayariseinitsimplementationanduse).Thisunderlinestheimportanceofthelinkagesbetweenusersandproducersthatcanactasavehicleforthiskindofknowledgeexchange.Toinnovatesuccessfully,producersmaydependcriticallyoninformationfromusers,andviceversa.Thisisthebasisoftheideaofthelearningeconomy(AndersenandLundvall1988).Thesocial

Howcroft 02 chap05 202 1/6/05 11:43:39 am


learningframeworkdrawsattentiontothewayinwhichtheseknowledgeflowsareachieved(oftenthroughtheeffortsofkeyintermediaries)throughprocessesthatSørensen(1996)describesas‘learningbyinteraction’.

Whenusingtheterm‘sociallearning’wearenotreferringnarrowlytoindividualcognitiveprocessesbutarecruciallyaddressingcollectivelearningprocesses–conceivedinthebroadestsensetoincludenotonlyknowledgeflowsbutalsointeractionsbetweenactorsandprocessesofnegotiationandstruggle.Itthusincludesprocessesof‘learningbyregulation’(ibid.)inwhichthecircumstancesforthe‘proper’operationofatechnologyareachieved.

Wecanfurtherdistinguishtworelatedsocial learningprocessesbywhichuserscontributetotechnologydevelopmentanduse:innofusionanddomestication.

InnofusionThisviewofinnovationdrawsonFleck’s(1988a)conceptof‘innofusion’(=innovation+diffusion) todemonstrate that the innovationof anartefact(roboticsandindustrialautomationinhisoriginalexegesis)wasnotlimitedtotheresearchanddevelopmentlaboratory,butcontinuedastheartefactwasdiffusedinitsimplementationanduse.Innofusionreferstothe‘processesof technologicaldesign,trialandexploration,inwhichuserneedsandrequirementsarediscoveredandincorporatedinthecourseofthestruggletogetthetechnologytoworkinusefulways,atthepointofapplication’(ibid.:3).

Domestication(orappropriation)Silverstone’s studies of the consumption of household technologieshighlightedthechoicesavailabletofamilymembersintermsofwheretheproductislocatedandhowitisincorporatedwithinfamilyroutines(MorleyandSilverstone1990;Silverstoneetal.1992).However,abroaderusageoftheconceptof‘domesticating’technologyhasemerged,inthesenseoftamingthetechnology.Thisofteninvolvesinnovationbytheconsumer:using artefacts in ways not anticipated by the designer (Berg 1994).Domestication(Silverstoneetal.1992;Sørensen1994;LieandSørensen1996)andtherelatedconceptofappropriation(Pacey1983;duGayetal.1997)areusedtohighlighttheeffortsofuserstointegrateICTapplicationswithintheirparticularcontextsandpurposes.Inthecaseofinformationsystemsatwork,domesticationmayinclude,forexample,thedevelopmentandredevelopmentof:workingandinformationpractices;work-aroundstoovercomefaults/limitationsinthedesignedsystem;andsystemsofmeaning(forexample,theclassificationofcases;seeStarandBowker1999).

Thesetwofacetsof sociallearningovertechnology–innofusionanddomestication–arenotseparate.However,theseconceptswerecoined

Howcroft 02 chap05 203 1/6/05 11:43:39 am


separatelyandfordifferingpurposes.Theydrawattentiontodifferingaspectsoftheinnovationprocess,respectively,theevolutionandbiographyofartefacts(Pollocketal.2003)andtheevolutionandbiographyofuser(anduserorganization)practices/culture.Thesociallearningframeworkcombinesthesetoachieveanintegratedperspective–andonethataddressesinnovationoverdifferentphasesofthecycleofproductdevelopmentanduseandindifferentsites.

A social learning perspective on designThesociallearningperspectiveondesignthuslocatesdesignwithinabroadercontext.Episodesofdesignarenotviewedassnapshotsinisolation–temporallyfromwhatprecedesandfollowedit,orsociallyfromitsbroadercontext–butareseenasmomentsof innovationacrossmultiplecyclesof design,implementation,consumptionandfurtherenhancementanddispersedacrossawiderangeofplayers,sitesorphases.

Wehaveelaboratedandtestedthisframeworkthroughaseriesofcasestudiesofdigitalexperimentsandtrials,conductedundertheSLIMproject–aneight-countrystudyfundedbytheEuropeanCommission.TheSLIMcasestudiesunusuallysoughttoencompassthedesign,implementationandconsumptionofnewmultimediasystemsacrossarangeofcontexts–commercial,education,publicadministration,communityinformationandeverydaylife.Thisworkhashighlightedthepertinenceofthesociallearningframeworktounderstandingtechnologydesign.

AschemahasbeendevelopedforunderstandinginnovationinICTapplications.Asthisportraysaratherdifferentviewfromreceivedmodels,itishelpfultobrieflyoutlinesomeofthesalientpoints.However,itisfirstimportanttoaddressimportantchangesthathavetakenplaceinboththeformofICTapplicationsanditsattendantdesign/developmentprocessescapturedbytheanalysisofICTas‘configurationaltechnology’.

ICTapplicationsasconfigurationaltechnologySocialshapingoftechnologyresearchhasproducedanumberofimportantinsights into the form of technology (particularly in respect of ICTapplications),theprocessofinnovationandtheopportunitiesforinfluencebyvariousplayers.Itrevealsthattoday,ICTdevelopmentvirtuallynevertakestheformofabinitiodesignofcompletesystems(asistacitlypresumedbythedesign-centredaccount).Instead,ICTsaretypically‘configurationaltechnologies’(Fleck1988b),createdfromselectionsof existing(oftenstandard,commodified)componenttechnologiesandtoolsandsomecustomizedelementsconfiguredtogether.9

Theconfigurationandcustomizationof cheap,genericcomponenttechnologieshasprovedaremarkablyeffectivewayofacquiringICTs(and

Howcroft 02 chap05 204 1/6/05 11:43:39 am


onethathashadfarmoreimpactthanuser-centreddesign).Thetrade-offsbetweenpriceandscopeandsoonyieldarangeof technologysupply/acquisitionstrategiesbetween,forexample,customizingalargegenericapplication(involvingasmallnumberof‘largegrain’components)foraparticularcontextandtheknittingtogetherof a‘fine-grained’arrayofsimplerflexiblecomponents(forexample,standardizedcomponentsandtools)selectedandconfiguredaroundtherequirementsofaparticularuser(Finchametal.1994).

Opportunitiesforuserinfluencevarywiththeformoftechnology:user-ledinnovationinconfigurationaltechnologiesThesedifferingcircumstancesoffervaryingopportunitiesforuserinfluence(whichKoch1997hascharacterizedas‘bricksandclay’inthehandsofthelocaluser).Inthelattercasewefindthattheorganizationaluserisabletoexerciseconsiderablechoiceoverthefinalconfiguration/solution.Indeed,itcouldbearguedthatthisconfigurationactivityopensupopportunitiesforakindofuser-leddesign,despitetheuser’svirtuallytotalexclusionfromthepriordesignofthecomponenttechnologies.10

RecognitionthatICTapplicationstaketheformof configurationaltechnologiesalsochangesourviewof thecharacterandsitesof designactivity.Designofconfigurationaltechnologiesismostimmediatelyabouttheappropriateselectionandartfulcombinationofthearrayofstandardcomponentsaswellasthecreationofcustomizedcomponents.Theusercanexertconsiderablechoiceoverthefinalconfiguration.Whatiscriticalintermsofthiscurrentdiscussionisthatthedevelopmentofconfigurationaltechnologyisamodelinwhichtechnologydesignandimplementationarecloselycoupled.

SupplierICTofferingsinevitablyfailtoprovidefinishedsolutionsOneofthereasonsforinnofusion/domesticationandemergenceofuser-ledcreationof configurationaltechnologiesistheimplausibilityof theexpectationthatdesignoutputs/supplierofferingscouldimmediatelyandcompletelymatchuserneeds(notleastsinceuserneedsareinchoate,varied,complexandevolving).ThisisparticularlymarkedwhenwearedealingwithICTapplicationsincomplexorganizationalandculturalcontexts.Inotherwords,supplierofferingsareinevitablyunfinished;workmustbedonetoadaptthemtothetechnicalandsocialcontextsofuse.Thisisaprocessofmutualshapinginwhich,ontheonehand,theartefactmaybereworkedtomeetspecificuserexigencies,whileontheother,theartefact,inbeingincorporatedwithinlocalsystemsofpracticeandmeaning,mayopenupnewwaysofdoingthings.Thesociallearningperspectiveseekstocapturetheseintertwininginnofusionanddomesticationprocessesin

Howcroft 02 chap05 205 1/6/05 11:43:40 am


theimplementationanduseof technologiesaswellasthepossibilityofdrawinglessonsforfuturetechnologicalsupply.

DesignasspecificorgenericForexample,weneedtobearinmindthatartefactualdesignisinevitablygenerictosomedegreeinrelationtospecificusers.Sincenotalluserscanbedirectlyinvolvedindesign,selectedusersmustinevitablytosomeextentstandproxyfortheirpeersandforfuturepotentialusers.Indeed,successfulsystemdesigndependsonanabilitynotjusttocapturethespecificitiesoftheusercontext,butalsototranslatetheseintoaforminwhichtheycanbemorewidelyused.Whilethedesignfallacyconceivestheimprovementofdesignintermsofbuildinginevermoreknowledgeaboutusersintotheartefact,therearealsorisksintryingtoprefiguretoocloselytheusersandtheirpurposes;inseekingtoforecloseuserchoicearoundtheexpressedpreferencesofparticularsetsofusers.Thereareissuesaroundthebuildingofrepresentationsoftheuser.Moreover,designissubjecttoanumberofcontradictoryparadoxes–betweenmakingasolutionspecificandgeneric;betweenaligningwithandmovingbeyondcurrentpracticesandmodels.

Thesefactorsmaymandateinfavourofadoptingmoregenericdesignapproaches. We thus see strategies to build upon successful specificapplications,buttodesignoutfromtheartefactreferencetoitsspecificcontextsoforiginationandusewhichmightlimititsfutureuseandmarket–ormorepreciselyto‘redesign’andre-presenttheartefacttomakeitmoregenericandopenituptobroadermarkets.Designersmayneedtobalancebetweenbuildingsolutionsthatareverytightlyconfiguredaroundparticularlocalrequirements–whichmay,forexample,actasabarriertoutilityanduseinothercontexts–andkeepingthesystemmoreflexible.SchummandKocyba(1997)havedescribedtherelatedprocessesasinvolvingontheonehand‘decontextualization’ofthisknowledge(itsseparationfromparticularcontexts,itscodificationtomakeitmorewidelyapplicable)andof‘recontextualization’(toimplementthisgenericknowledgewithinparticularartefacts).Thisinvolvesashiftinperspectivesfromparticularuserstoagenericrepresentation–of‘theuser’orasetofclassesofuser.Despitetherhetoricsoftheaccountabilityofdesigntotheuser,designersanddevelopersmayhaveonlyalimitedunderstandingof,orconcernaboutactualusers.‘Theuser’isthusaconstruct–aprojectionofpotentialusers–builtaroundvariouskindsofpartialknowledgeofactualuserstogetherwithotheragendas(forexample,suppliercapabilitiesandcommercialstrategies).11Forexample,inthecreationofapackagedICTapplicationforanorganization,wemayfindashiftfromanichesolutiondesignedaroundspecificorganizationaluserstoagenericsolutionbuiltaroundsuppliers’decisionsabouttheirintendedmarketanditscommonfeatures.Inthecase

Howcroft 02 chap05 206 1/6/05 11:43:40 am


ofnovelmass-marketproducts,theremaybenoexistinguserstoreferto.Whilethepreferencesofusersmaybeassessedthroughpanelsandtrialswithselectedproxyusers,theproductwillbedevelopedandpromotedaroundratherdifferentsetsofcategoriesandknowledgefrom,forexample,marketresearch(forexample,demographicinformation,establishedlanguagesandstatisticsforcharacterizinglifestylegroupsandmarketsegments).

Thereareimportanttrade-offsbetweenmakingartefactsuniqueandmakingthemstandardized.Forexample,thecostandotherbenefitsofre-usingsoftware ‘code’generatesa trade-off insoftwareacquisitionstrategiesbetweentheincreasedutilitytotheparticularuserandhighercostofsolutionscustombuiltaroundtheirparticularrequirementsandcheapergenericsolutionswhichmaymatchtheirrequirementslessexactly(Bradyetal.1992;Finchametal.1994).Weseeincreasingresorttocommercialoff-the-shelf (COTS)softwaresolutions(Pollocketal.2003).Suppliersmayseektoadaptapplicationsdevelopedinonecontexttosellthemonasnicheorgenericsolutions,securingadditionalreturnsontheirdevelopmenteffort.Usersmaychoosetoadapttotheconstraintsofcheaperpackagedsoftwareforavarietyof reasons.12Thustherapidspreadof packagedsoftwareandtoolsremindsusthatthepossibleprice(perunitfunctionality)advantagesofmass-producedstandardsolutionsmayoutweighthecoststoparticularusersofadaptingsystemsoradaptingtheiractivitiestosystemconstraintsandaffordances.Theattractivenessofstandardizedofferingsisfurtherincreasedbythepossibilityofcombiningthemwithcustomizedelementsintoconfigurationaltechnologysolutions.Thisisfurtherassistedbyconsciousattemptstodesignsuchcomponenttechnologiestobereadilylinkedtogetherandcustomized.

DesignasahypothesisabouttheuserThisperspectiveinvolvesashiftawayfromtheideaofthesuppliedartefactasafinishedsolutionforparticularusers.Instead,wetookthebroadviewthatartefactualdesignembodiessomethingofahypothesisabouttheuser(Lobet-MarisandvanBastelaer1999).Inthissense,digitalexperimentsandtrialscanbeseenasprovidinganopportunitytotestthesehypotheses.However,theSLIMinvestigationshaveshown,acrossarangeofcasestudies,thatinthedesignanddevelopmentprocessformultimediaproductsandservices,thesehypothesesabouttheuseranduseoftenremainimplicitandunderspecified.Thepresumptionsmadeabouttheusertypicallyremainlargelyunstatedandareoftenpoorlyelaborated.Thesepresumptionsarethentested–forexample,undersimulatedoractualconditionsofuse.Wereturntothisinthefollowingsectionwhendiscussinghowaneffectiverepresentationoftheuserisachieved.

Howcroft 02 chap05 207 1/6/05 11:43:40 am


Representation of the user – revisitedOurcritiqueof themaintraditionof analysisof designhighlightedthedifficultiesingeneratinganadequatemodel,or‘representation’(Vedel1994),oftheuseranduserrequirements.Despitethis,itremainsthecasethatdevelopment/designneedstoprefigureanumberofelementsaboutthecontext,purposesandactivitiesoftheuser.Howeveraricherunderstandingoftherepresentationprocessisperhapscalledfor.

Representationrelatestoanumberofdifferentelements.Forexample,Nicoll’s (2000) ‘contextualusability’modelconceives theusabilityoftechnologyasacomplexof interdependentelementswithinaparticularcontext,includingusefulness,(thedevelopmentof)usagepatterns,andtheparticularsocialandcognitiveexigenciesofsituateduse.Followingonfromthiswesuggestthatrepresentationencompasses:thetechnicalconfigurationofthesystem,content,usage,usesand‘rules’(formalandinformal)aboutproperusage/users.

Inprinciple,thehypothesesembodiedinthedesign/representationareattemptstoprefiguretheseverydimensionsof theeventualuseof theartefact.However,itisdifficult,indeedimpossibletoprefigurethesereliably–hencetheimportanceofsociallearning,bothintestingandrefiningthedesignhypotheseswhetherthrough‘synthetic’sociallearningprocessesinthecourseofdevelopment,orbysecuringfeedbackfromactualsociallearningprocessesintheappropriationofartefactsinreal-lifecontextstofuturetechnologydesign/representation(Akrich1995).

Thereare, then,anumberof waysbywhichdesignersmayseekto‘configuretheuser’(intheWoolgariansense–comprisingattemptsbothtoprefigure/incorporatetheuserinthedesignoftheartefactsandtoalignactualuserstothatview).Vedel(1994)identifiesarangeofmechanismsthroughwhichdevelopers seek toconfigure theuser– including, forexample,advertisements,directionsforuseandtechnicalguides–aswellastechnicaldesign.VanLieshout(1999)takesthisfurtherto includerepresentationsof thecontextforoperatingthetechnology.Developingtheseideas,Lobet-MarisandvanBastelaer(1999)identifythedifferentelementsoftheartefactsthroughwhichtheusermaybeconfigured(inthedesignof‘DigitalCities’):

1. theinterface,andinparticular,thewayinformationispresentedintheinterface(forexample,themetaphorsthatareusedwill‘configure’theuserandinduceaspecificusage);

2. thelanguageandterminologyusedintheinterface;3. servicesoffered–thetypesofinformation;4. rulesallowingorforbiddingparticularbehaviours;

Howcroft 02 chap05 208 1/6/05 11:43:40 am


5. accesspossibilities–forexample,whereequipmentisaccessible,openinghoursandsoonimplydifferenttypesofuser;and

6. training.

However,designisnotaone-off act,butispartof aniterativeseriesof activities, informed by earlier design practice and feedback fromtheappropriationanduseof othersystems(earliertechnologiesinthisapplicationdomain;similartechnologiesinrelateddomains).Figure10.1showsschematicallythevariousmomentsinvolvedinaparticularcycleofdevelopment,andtherelationshipsbetweenthem.Itshowstheiterationbetweenthearticulationof representationsof user/useattheoutsetof,theirmaterializationinparticulardesigns/configurationsandfinallytestingtheimplementeddesignhypothesesthroughprocessesofinnofusionanddomesticationinparticularcontextsofusefollowedpotentiallybyfeedbacktofuturetechnologysupply/design.

Source: Williamsetal.(2005).

Figure10.1 Schematicdiagramofuserrepresentationandappropriation

Followingonfromthisweaskwhatintellectualresourcesdodesignersanddevelopershaveforbuildingarepresentationof thepotentialuser?Figure10.2showssomeof thesourcesof ideasandinformationthatdesigners/developersmaydeploy.

Howcroft and Trauth – Fig 10.1

Design/ configurationTechnical configurationContent,Usage,Uses,Rules

RepresentationTechnical configurationContent,Usage,Uses,Rules

RepresentationTechnical configurationContent,Usage,Uses,Rules

Testing:Implementeddesignhypothesis

Materialization:Implementingrepresentation/in design/configuration

Feedback tofuture design/technologysupply

Howcroft 02 chap05 209 1/6/05 11:43:41 am


Source: Williamsetal.(2005).

Figure10.2 Resourcesforbuildingrepresentationsoftheuser

Thefigureillustratesanumberof points.First,inacontextinwhichinformationaboutpotentialusersistypicallyincompleteorofuncertainreliability,playersmaybeobligedto‘knittogether’differentkindsofknowledgefromdiversesourceswithdifferentevidentialstatusandwithdifferentdegreesofgearingto‘actual’users.

Second,theremayberelativelylittleempiricallygroundedinformationaboutexistingusers.Manystudieshavedrawnattentiontothecrudeandlimitedwaysinwhichtechnologysuppliershavesoughttounderstandtherequirementsofpotentialusers(Cawsonetal.1995).Therehave,ofcourse,beenimportantimprovementsoverthelastdecadeinthetechniquesbywhichfirmsgaindirectinformationaboutusers(forexample,throughmarket surveys, consumer testingof prototypesbypanelsof ‘proxy’usersandfeedbackfrom‘real’usersofearlyversionsoftheproduct;seeAkrich1995),althoughthesekindsofexerciseareexpensiveandmaynotbeseenasjustified,particularlyinrelationtosmaller-scaledevelopment.Intheabsenceofdirectknowledgeofusers,theremayberesorttomoreorlesswell-justifiedindirectconstructionsof theuser–forexample,byextrapolatingfromsimilartechnologyapplications.Constructionsoftheuser,createdby‘experts’(forexample,engineersorintermediaries)may,forexample,bederivedfromtheirownpersonalexperienceandculture(Nicoll2000)ormaybemorefirmlyrootedinexperiencesinthisorotherproductmarkets.Expertconstructionsmaybeinformednotonlybyrigorousevidenceandpertinentexperiencebutalsobyvisionsoftechnologyandnarratives(myths?),includinganecdotesorstereotypesabouttheuserwhich

Howcroft and Trauth – Fig 10.2

Directinvolvementof user

Indirectevidenceabout users

Little market informationon existing usersDemand/market forother productsCompetitors

User panelsMarket researchTrialsInnofusion

Constructions of the userVisions of technologyFictions/myths? about the userExpert proxies e.g. experience ofengineers/intermediaries

Representationof user

Howcroft 02 chap05 210 1/6/05 11:43:42 am


mayturnouttobemoreorlessclosetoactualusersandtheirbehaviours.Developersdonotworkinavacuum–butmaybeinfluencedherebypopularopinion,mediaviewsandinparticularbythebehaviourofpeersandcompetitors–whichmaybereflectedinclusteringofsupplierofferingsorthemutualreinforcementofsuppliervisionsandpresumptions.Thesekindsof alignmentof expertviews,andconsequentmission-blindness,havebeenidentifiedastherootofanumberofhigh-profileandexpensivefailuresofICTsystems(Collingridge1992).

Thepotentialweaknessesof thelatterformsof evidenceareclear–informedastheyareby‘implicit’presumptionsandknowledgeofuncertainevidentialstatusratherthanthesystematicapplicationofexplicitverifiabletechniques(Akrich1995).However, itwouldbemisleadingtoseetheapplicationofformaltechniquesasobviatingtheuncertaintiessurroundingusersandtheirrequirements.Wewouldliketocarrythisargumentfurther.Ourthirdpointisthatalltheformsofinformationaboutfutureuserscarrytheirownuncertaintiesanddifficulties.Forexample,themostsystematicempiricalinformationavailableaboutuserchoicesandpreferences(asrevealed,forexample,inaggregateformthroughmarketbehaviour)islikelytoexistonlyinrelationtoestablishedproducts(eventhen,userpreferencesmaychangeovertimeassomeelementsbecomeseenasessentialfeaturesinaparticularproductmarket(forexample,inthewaythateverymobilephonesoldtodayincludestherelativelyrecentSMS(ShortMessagingService)innovation).Incontrast,whereproductsarechanging,expertviewsareliabletoberootedinpriorexperiencesinotherrelatedmarkets.Thequestionarisesastohowfaronecanextrapolatefromsuchinformation.Theproblemperceivedinrelationto‘radicalinnovations’isthatknowledgeabouttheusersandusesofexistingapplicationsmaynotprovideareliableguidetothenovelapplication.Thereisinevitablyametaphoricalleap.

Empiricallygroundedinformationaboutusersof anewproductmaybesoughtthroughavarietyofmethods:thedirectinvolvementofproxyusersinpanels;marketresearchsurveys;andtrials(ibid.).However,variousdifficultiesariseregardingtheinterpretationof suchdirectinformationaboutpotential(andultimateactual)users.Forexample,userpanelsneedtobeintroducedtonewtechnologiesandgivensometrainingintheiruse–however,theirselectionandtrainingmeanthattheyareinsomewaysnolongerindependentandrepresentativeofwiderpublics.Sørensen(1996,section2.3)describesthisas‘simulatedsociallearning’,involvingasitdoes‘peoplethataresupposedtoactasif theywereusers,butunderartificial,laboratory-likecircumstances’.Initiativesfor‘userinvolvement’inthedesign/useofprototypesraisedsimilarproblemsaboutrepresentativeness.Since,inmostorganizationalsettings,notallcurrentuserscanbeinvolved,userinvolvement(directlyindesignorinpanelsandtrials)isinevitably

Howcroft 02 chap05 211 1/6/05 11:43:42 am


basedonanincompletesampleofexistingusers(letalonefuture,asyetunknown,users),whichthrowsupasetoffurtheruncertaintiesandchoices.Howshouldappropriate‘proxyusers’beselected?Istheirbehaviourinthelaboratoryagoodbasisforunderstandingbehaviourineverydaylife?Wouldtheirresponsesprovideasecurefoundationforanticipatingthelargercohortof‘real’usersthatthesupplierwantedtoattract?Forexample,weknowthatmanyinitialusersofatechnologymaybe‘enthusiasts’who,intheirskillsandinterestinatechnicalfield,maydiffersubstantiallyfromlateradoptersintermsoftheirexpectationsandrequirements(Rogers1983;Norman1988).Thismaybeoneofthereasonsleadingtothedevelopmentof baroquetechnologies(forexample,thevideomachineormicrowaveoven)withfeaturesthatmostuserscannotfullyutilize.

Manyoftheseconsiderationstendedtomandateinfavouroflivedigitalexperimentsand trials–whichwouldallowexperimentationaroundtheacceptanceandutilityof aproductinrelativelynaturalisticsettings(Nicoll2000).

TheproliferationofdigitalexperimentsandtrialsoverthelastdecadeunderpinthepotentialimportanceofsociallearningintheinnofusionanddomesticationofICTapplications–inthatitcanproviderichsourcesofmoredirectandreliableinformationabout‘actual’userresponsestosupplierofferings(thoughissuesariseabouthowsuchappropriationexperiencescanbefedbacktogeneratemorerobustuserrepresentationsforfuturedesign).

Itremainsthecasethatitisnotpossibletoproducethroughexperimentsandtrialsafullycomprehensiveandwhollyrepresentativeaccountoftheuser’sreactions(justasweobservedinrelationtorequirementscapture).Theknowledgebaseis,of necessity,incompleteandpotentiallyopentochallenge.Itis,inconsequence,necessarytoexercisejudgementinacontextofuncertainty.

Reconceptualizing the design processThegoalofthischapterisamoreadequateandintricateunderstandingofdesign,itsvarious‘audiences’andhowtheyareincorporatedinthedesignprocessanditsoutcomes.Theanalysiswehavepresentedcallsforsomerethinkingofcertaincommonpresumptionsaboutdesign.Forastart,weargueforabroadunderstandingofdesign,asinvolvingarangeofdecisionsaboutsystemdesign,developmentanddeployment.Inparallelwiththiswemoveawayfromaconceptionofdesignasanindividualcognitiveprocess,embodiedinaparticulardesigner,toseeingitasanegotiationprocess;acollectiveendeavourinvolvingmanyplayers,including,forexample,projectmanagersaswellasjustdesignspecialists.Designis,touseJohnLaw’s(1988)term,‘heterogeneous’.Thirdwestressthatdesignhasanumberof

Howcroft 02 chap05 212 1/6/05 11:43:42 am


audiencesaswellastheprojectedfinalusersandtheorganizationaluserwhomayhavecommissionedthedesign.Thismayinclude,forexample,developers/designersofcomplementaryproductsaswellasmanagerslinkedtotheparticulardevelopmentproject,standardsettersandotherswhomayactasgatekeepersorproxiesforultimatepotentialusers.MacKayetal.(2000)makeasimilarpointwhenarguingthatthedesigneris‘configured’bythecontextofdesign.

DesignasaconfigurationprocessWewouldalsomakeaslightlydifferentpoint,derivingfromouranalysisof configurationaltechnology(seeabove),thatdesignisaconstrainedconfigurationprocess.Thiscontrastswiththeheroicaccountofdesignbyseeingtheprocessofdesignnotasanopensearch,13butasconstrained,enabledandchannelledbyitsinsertioninabroadersettingandhistoryofpriordesignchoices.Animportantfeatureofmanysystemdesignprocessesisthusthecreativeselectionandconfigurationtogetherofaselectionofalreadyexistingbundlesofknowledge,practices,artefacts,aswellasnovelelements.Designinthiscontextisrevealedasaprocessofconfiguration:inthesenseof anartfulselectionandcombinationof diversefixedandmalleableelementsbutoperatinglargelywithinexistingrepertoires(whichWhipp1985describedasstructuralrepertoiresof establishedproblemdiagnosesanddesignedsolutions).

Ouruseoftheterm‘configuration’drawsattentiontotheapplicationof relativelyrestrictedsetsof rulesforreconfiguring(thatis,selecting,reworking,adaptingandcombining)existingknowledgeandpractices.14Designmay‘configure’theuser(Woolgar1991)butitisalsoconditionedbyitscontextandhistory.

‘Designasaccountability’Thedesignfallacyandideasofparticipatoryandethnographicallyinformeddesigncanbeseenaslinkedtothemoregeneralidea,whichwecanfindacrossarangeofsociallyorientedcomputercontributions,that‘good’computersystemdesignwouldbeadesignprocessthatissubjecttotherequirementsofthesediverseusergroups.Indeedarathersimilarconceptionunderpinsmoreformalizedstructuredsystemsdesignmethodologies.Wehavedescribedthisasamodelof‘designasaccountability’,inwhichtherequirementsofallstakeholdersaretoberepresentedandseentoberepresentedintheeventualdesign.Thedesigner’sroleisthustoreceivethisspecificationandtoembeditauthenticallyandreliablyintheeventualdesignedsystem.However,thisrepresentsaratherrestricted,bureaucraticanduncreativeviewoftheroleofthedesignerandthecharacterofdesignwork.

Howcroft 02 chap05 213 1/6/05 11:43:42 am


‘Designascreativity’Althoughdesignersmayseeadvantageinpresentingtheirroleinthisneutraltechnicalmanner,designisof necessitymorethansimplytheinductionfromarticulateduserrequirements.Forexample,designersinevitablyplayanactiveroleinestablishingwhichrequirementsareprioritizedinacontextofpotentiallyconflictingrequirementsofcompetingdemandsonlimitedresources.Ourcritiqueoftheconceptualizationofcomputer-systemsdesignintermsoftheaccountabilitymodelsuggestsanalternativemodelofdesignasacreativeprocess,andonethatvalorizesauthorship.Inthismodethedesignerisgivenleavetoconstructnewconceptsofuse–toreconstructtheuserandtransformexistinggenresofuse(albeitwithintheboundsofwhatparticularuserscanbeconvincedisacceptable/attractive,basedonwhateverevidencemaybedeployedregardinguserpreferences).Thisisparticularlyevidentwhenweconsiderthedesignofnovelapplications(especiallyformass-marketproducts)wheretherearenoexistingusers.

Whenactualdesignsettingsarestudied(forexample, intheSLIMcasestudies),theprimarydesigngoalsandpurposesof aprojectwerenottypicallyinducedfromuserresponses,butwereinsteadinvokedintheoriginalconceptionof theproject.Thecasesvariedintheemphasisgiventouserobjectivesanduses;insome,therewererelativelyclearsetsofparametersemergingfromconsiderationofuserrequirements,whileinothers,thetechnicalpotential(anditsimputedself-evidentadvantages)weremorecentral.

WecanexplorethisbyexaminingtheanalysesthathavebeenadvancedofthedevelopmentofaclassofcommunityinformationsystemsknownasDigitalCities.AmsterdamDigitalCity(DDS),theforerunnerofmanyEuropeaninitiatives,wasstudiedbothbyLobet-MarisandvanBastelaer(1999),fortheSLIMstudyandsubsequentlybyOudshoornetal.(2004)foranotherEuropeanCommissionproject–SIGIS.15Lobet-MarisandvanBastelaerarguethatfailureinsomeDigitalCityprojectstofocusuponspecificusergroupsresultedintechnicalcriteriaprevailingoverdesigndecisions.16Rommes(2002)andOudshoornetal.takethispointfurther,arguinginDDSthatwhereinterfacesaredesignedfor‘everybody’,insteadofwithaspecificusergroupinmind,thetacitdefaultuserwillcontinuetobethe‘typicalInternet-user’(thehighlyeducated,whiteyoungmalewithextensivecomputerexperience).

Incontrast,itseemsthatthosedesigncasesinwhichaclearanddeterminedattemptwasmadetotransformexistinggenderedpresumptions,designersfoundithelpfultoconjureupstereotypicalrepresentationsofusers–notwithanyimplicationthatthesewereactualrepresentationsofparticulargroupsofactors,butasself-consciouslystylizedarchetypes–astoolsforrethinkingdesignpresumptions.

Howcroft 02 chap05 214 1/6/05 11:43:43 am


ConclusionThisbrief reviewhassoughttolayoutamorecomprehensiveandmorerealistic17viewoftheprocessofdesignbuildingoninsightsfromresearchintothesocialshapingoftechnology(particularlyinrelationtoICTs)andtheemergingsociallearningperspective.

Wehavecriticizedthe‘designfallacy’andthecommonpresumptionsof user-centreddesignandmajorcurrentswithin social shapingandconstructivistanalysesofcurrentdesign,whichseeasolutiontoshortcomingsincurrentdesignpracticesintermsof‘buildingin’toartefactualdesignan increasing body of knowledge about the requirements of diversespecificusers.

Thedesign-centredmodeliscriticizedonthegroundsof theoryandpractice:ontheonehanditprovidesasimplisticandunrealisticstereotypicalaccount of the design process; on the other, it overlooks importantopportunitiesforinterventionandimprovementindesignprocessesif adesign-implementationlife-cyclemodelisadopted.Inparticularweargueagainstthemodelofdesignasaninductiveprocessofaccumulatingevermoreinformationaboutcurrentuserrequirements.Recognitionofthecomplexityanddiversityof usersettingsdoesnotnecessarilyimplythattechnologicaldesignwillorshouldbeentirelyshapedaroundtheaccumulateddetailedneedsofparticularusers.Whendesignisviewedinitsbroadercontextofmultipleoverlappingcyclesofdesign–implementation–use,weseemanyroutesformatchingevolvingtechnicalaffordancesagainstemergingusages/userrequirementsinadditiontomerelycontributingtopriortechnologicaldesign.Thewayinwhichtechnologicaldevelopmentmaycaterfordifferentsocialpurposesandplayersisequallycomplex.Thus,inadditiontodesigningspecificrequirementsintoartefacts,theremaybeaneedto‘designout’referencestospecificusers/contextsof useinthecreationofgenericsolutions.Thisprocessofmakingaproductgenericmaywellbeattheexpenseofmeetingthespecificrequirementsandrelevancesof particularusers–indeed,thecreationof standardizedmass-marketsolutionsmayexcludemanyinfavourofthemajority(Pollocketal.2003).Insomecircumstancesthismaynotbeproblematic.Wemustbearinmindthatmanyof themostsuccessfulICTapplicationsinrecentyearshavebeenmediaandcommunicationstechnologies(e-mail,mobiletelephony,SMS,theinternetandtheworld-wide-web)whichmakefewpresumptionsaboutthekindsofactivitybeingsupported.Thisisoneofanumberofparadoxessurroundingdesignthatneedtoberesolvedinparticulardesignepisodes–betweenmakingdesignsspecificorgeneric;standardizingandprovidinguniquesolutions;prefiguringuserrequirementsandkeepingartefactdesignandusageopen;betweenmatchingcurrentpracticesandconsideringfutureextensions.

Howcroft 02 chap05 215 1/6/05 11:43:43 am


Increasinglysophisticatedmethodsarebeingadoptedtoobtainmorerobustevidenceaboutusers’requirements–throughdirectknowledgeofspecificproxy‘users’;andthroughformsofsociallearninginmoreorlessnaturalcontextsofuse.TheimportanceofthesemorenaturalisticsitesofsociallearningisdemonstratedbytheexplosioninsocialexperimentsandtechnicaltrialsinnewICTapplications.However,designmustconfronttheinevitablemetaphoricalleapincreatingarepresentationof‘theuser’inacontextof incomplete informationaboutcurrentusersandtheirrequirements(letalonefutureuserswhodonotyetexist).

The social learning perspective being developed opens up ourunderstandingoftheinnovationprocess.Itofferssomecautiousgroundsforoptimism,inplaceof thepessimismof thedesign-centredaccount,forarangeofavenuesforimprovementinpracticeratherthanmerelyoneratherprescriptiveroute.Itdrawsattentiontothemultiplicityofsitesandspacesforintervention:

• involvingdifferentavenuesandkindsofactivity;• involving(directlyandindirectly)awiderandmorediverserangeof

actorsincludingnon-specialists;• affordingvaryingopportunitiesforinfluence,dependingonthecontext

andformoftechnology;and• requiringvariouskindsoftoolsandsupport.

This exploration has offered some important insights. However, thechallengemaybeforamoresystematicstudyof technologydesignanddevelopment(initsbroadsetting,encompassingmultiplecyclesofdesignandimplementation),whichhaspotentiallyimportantlessonsfordesignanddevelopment.

Notes 1. ThischapterisbaseduponatalkinitiallypresentedatTheEuropeanAssociationforthe

StudyofScienceandTechnology(EASST)2002(York,1August2002).AnearlierversionappearsinHaraldRohracher(ed.)(2005),UserInvolvementinInnovationProcesses:StrategiesandLimitationsfromaSocio-technicalPerspective,Munich:Profil-Verlag.

2. TheSLIMprojectwasfundedundertheTargetedSocio-EconomicResearchprogrammeoftheEuropeanCommissionFourthFrameworkProgramme(Contract4141PL951003).Somefindingsappearedearlier,notablyinvanLieshoutetal.(2001).ThemainfindingsarepublishedinWilliamsetal.(2005).WearegratefultoourEuropeancollaboratorsfortheircontributiontotheideasandmaterialonwhichthisanalysisisbased.

3. ThiswastruealsoofsomeofthemultimediasocialexperimentsexploredintheSLIMstudy,reportedhere,whichhadbroaderambitionstobeexemplarsandfulfilcertainsocialambitions.

4. Thereareobviouslimitationstotheroleofethnographyasamethodforrequirementscapture;itisanexpensiveandslowmethodfordatacapture.Effectiverequirementscaptureanddesignismuchmorethantheaccumulationofknowledgeofdiverseuserrequirements;youcouldnevercarryoutenoughethnographytocreateanall-inclusive

Howcroft 02 chap05 216 1/6/05 11:43:43 am


accountof,forexample,alargeorganization;norcouldyousimplyinduceadesignsolutionfromsuchaknowledgebase.Effectivedesignalsorequiresgeneralization,basedonsomekindof accommodation,satisficingandprioritizationbetweenthespecificrequirementsandpreferencesofmultipleindividualsandgroups.Theundoubtedstrengthofethnographicmethodsisinpickingupandprovidinginsightsintotheintricacyofworkcontextsandpracticesatalevelofdetailwhichdoesspeaktodesign.However,inmostcircumstancesitsrolecanonlybeasaresourcetodeepenothermethodsofrequirementsanalysisratherthanasaprimaryrequirementscapturemethodology.

5. Mackayetal(2000:737–57note18)drawattentiontothediverseformulationsthatWoolgarhasdeployedforconfiguringwhichincludedefiningtheidentityoffutureusersandsettingconstraintsupontheirlikelyfutureactions(Woolgar1991:59note17).

6. Weusetheconceptof‘narrativebias’torefertotheshortcomingsthathavecharacterizedmuchwritinginthisdomaininwhichcertainelementsandissuesarepulledintotheforeground,andothersdownplayed,toproduceastylizedandsimplifiedstorywhichseemstoholdacertainnarrativecompulsiontothatgroup.Particular(sub)disciplinesseemtofavourparticulartypesofnarrative(forexample,thedemonizationofdesigners).Oftenthisservestoaugmenttheperceivedsocialsignificanceandcentralityofthelocalesandactorsunderstudy.

7. Inmassconsumerproducts, consumption is far removed in timeandspace fromdevelopment.ThesmallnumberofcasestudieswheredesignandimplementationarebothaddressedarealmostalwaysthoseofthedevelopmentofspecificITapplications–inwhichdesignerandorganizationalusersarepartofalinkedinstitutionalnexus(aswellasourownwork,Williamsetal.2000,2005,see,forexample,McLaughlinetal.1999;Mackayetal.2000).Followingonfromthis,manystudiesof designhavebeensnapshots,focusingupontheactivitiesofdesignersandunderplayingtheextenttowhichdesignoperatesaspartofabroaderprocessinvolvingcommercialization,implementationandapplicationandfeedbackintofuturedesign/development.

8. Weareinfluencedherebyworkfromorganizationalstudies(forexample,on‘organizationallearning’,Schon1983)andelsewherewhichhasemphasizedtheadaptiveandreflexivecapabilitiesofactors.

9. Indeed,thedevelopmentofconfigurationaltechnologiesisnowsopronouncedthatitisdifficulttofindexamplesthatcorrespondtoFleck’s(1988b)counterexampleofsystemtechnologies.

10. Thisis,ofcourse,averydifferentmodelofuserinputtodesignanddevelopmentthantheconventionalconceptofuserscontributingtothespecificationanddesignchoicesaroundspecifictechnologies(componentorwholeapplications).Itis,however,amodelinwhichtheuserisabletoexerciseconsiderableinfluenceoverthefinaldesignedsystem.

11. Whiledesignersthinkoftheuserthroughthe‘lens’ofatechnicalartefact,othersmayhavedifferentunderstandingsofthesepeople–ascustomers,clients,patients,citizens,ratepayers–notrevolvingaroundtechnologysystems.

12. Usersmayfindadditionalbenefitsfromadaptingtostandardofferings–notablyvariousnetworkexternalitybenefitsfromtheinteroperabilityof standardizedtechnologies–including,forexample,thegreateravailabilityofskillstomaintainanduseapackage.

13. AsmightbeinferredbyLatour’s(1988)portrayalof technicalspecialistsasModernPrinces(‘Sartreanengineers’)actingwithahighdegreeofautonomy.

14. DanShapiroandco-workershavedeployedLeviStrauss’sconceptofbricolagetodescribethisprocess(Büscheretal.2001).

15. ThelatterstudywasundertakenforanotherECprojectonStrategiesforInclusion,GenderandtheInformationSociety(IST200026329fundedundertheInformationSocietyTechnologiesProgramme).SIGISseekstounderstandhowdesignanddevelopmentchoicesmayexcludecertainactors(focusinginparticularonthegenderdimension)andinparticularwhatstrategiesmightpromotesocialinclusion.

16. Thisdoesnotmean,ofcourse,thattherewasnoscopeforsociallearningandexperimentationinthemoretechnicallyfocusedprojects.Forexample,theSLIMportfolioofcasesincludedanumberofprojectsthatwereprimarilyconcernedtodevelopandtestanewtechnicalinfrastructure.However,thereisasensethattechnologicalobjectiveshavetakenfirst

Howcroft 02 chap05 217 1/6/05 11:43:43 am


place,andonlyaftertheyhavebeenrealisedhasspaceemergedforexperimentationaboutusages(forexample,intheabovecases,abouteducationalobjectives).Thepresumptionthatthetechnologywouldprovideasolutionperse,meantthatusershavehadtograpplewiththeconstraintsandaffordancesofnewtechnologiesundercircumstancesofuseandaccordingtotheparametersconfiguredindesign.However,thistestinghasrequiredtheimplementationofparticularapplicationstorunontheinfrastructureandpresumptions.Someformofuserexperimentationhasneededtotakeplaceeventhoughthishad,tosomeextent,tobe‘smuggledin’(Jaegeretal.2000).

17. Weseekarealisticunderstandinginthesenseofamoreintricateaccountandonethatpresentsamoreadequateaccountofdesign/developmentpracticethatmight,forexample,berecognizedbypractitioners.Wehavesoughttoavoidthepitfallsof‘narrativebias’

describedearlier.

ReferencesAkrich,M.(1992a),‘Thedescriptionoftechnologicalobjects’,inW.BijkerandJ.Law(eds),

ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety,Cambridge,MA:MITPress,pp.205–24.Akrich,Madeleine(1992b),‘Beyondsocialconstructionoftechnology:theshapingofpeople

andthingsintheinnovationprocess’,Chapter9inM.DierkesandU.Hoffmann(eds),NewTechnologyandtheOutset:SocialForcesintheShapingofTechnologicalInnovations,FrankfurtandNewYork:Campus/Westview,pp.173–90.

Akrich,Madeleine(1995),‘Userrepresentations:practices,methodsandsociology’,inRipetal.(eds),pp.167–84.

Akrich,M.andB.Latour(1992),‘Asummaryofaconvenientvocabularyforthesemioticsofhumanandnonhumanassemblies’,Chapter9inW.BijkerandJ.Law(eds),ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety,Cambridge,MA:MITPress,pp.259–64.

Andersen,E.S.andB.-Å.Lundvall(1988),‘Smallnationalsystemsof innovationfacingtechnologicalrevolutions:ananalyticalframework’,inC.FreemanandB.-Å.Lundvall(eds),SmallCountriesFacingtheTechnologicalRevolution,London:Pinter,pp.9–36.

Anderson,Bob(1997)‘Work,ethnographyandsystemdesign’,TechnicalReportEPC-1996–103,inA.KentandJ.G.Williams(eds),TheEncyclopediaofMicrocomputers,vol.20,NewYork:MarcelDekker,pp.159–83.

Arrow,K(1962),‘Theeconomicimplicationsof learningbydoing’,ReviewofEconomicStudies,29,155–73.

Berg,Anne-Jorunn(1994),‘Technologicalflexibility:bringinggenderintotechnology(orisittheotherwayaround)?’,Chapter5inCockburnandFurst-Dilic(eds),pp.94–110.

Bødker,SusanneandJoanM.Greenbaum(1992),‘Designofinformationsystems:thingsversuspeople’,ComputerScienceDepartment,AarhusUniversity,Aarhus.

Brady,Tim,MargaretTierneyandRobinWilliams(1992),‘Thecommodificationofindustryapplicationssoftware’,IndustrialandCorporateChange,1(3),489–514.

Büscher,Monika,SatinderGill,Preben,MogensenandDanShapiro(2001),‘Landscapesofpractice:bricolageasamethodforsituateddesign’,ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork,10(1),1–28.

Cawson,Alan,LeslieHaddonandIanMiles(1995),TheShapeofThingstoConsume:DeliveringITintotheHome,Aldershot:Avebury.

Cockburn,CynthiaandRuzaFurst-Dilic(eds)(1994),BringingTechnologyHome:GenderandTechnologyinaChangingEurope,MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.

Collingridge,David(1992)TheManagementofScale:BigOrganizations,BigDecisions,BigMistakes,LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

duGay,Paul,StuartHall,LindaJanes,HughMackayandKeithNegus(1997),DoingCulturalStudies:TheStoryoftheSonyWalkman,LondonandNewDelhi:Sage.

Ehn,P.(1988),Work-OrientedDesignofComputerArtifacts,Stockholm:Arbetslivcentrum.Fincham,Robin,JamesFleck,RobertProcter,HarryScarbrough,MargaretTierneyand

RobinWilliams(1994),ExpertiseandInnovation:InformationStrategiesintheFinancialServicesSector,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress/Clarendon.

Howcroft 02 chap05 218 1/6/05 11:43:44 am


Fleck,James(1988a),‘Innofusionordiffusation?Thenatureoftechnologicaldevelopmentinrobotics’EdinburghProgrammeonInformationandCommunicationTechnologies(PICT)WorkingPaperNo.7,EdinburghUniversity.

Fleck,James(1988b),‘Thedevelopmentofinformationintegration:beyondCIM?’,EdinburghPICTWorkingPaperNo.9,EdinburghUniversity.Adigestofthispaper,preparedfortheDepartmentofTradeandIndustry,isavailableas‘Information-integrationandindustry’,PICTPolicyResearchPaperNo.16,EconomicandSocialResearchCouncil,Oxford,1991.

Green,Eileen,JennyOwenandDenPain(eds)(1993),GenderedbyDesign?InformationTechnologyandOfficeSystems,LondonandWashington,DC:Taylor&Francis.

Jaeger,Birgit,RogerSlackandRobinWilliams(2000),‘Europeexperimentswithmultimedia:anoverviewofsocialexperimentsandtrials’,TheInformationSociety16(4),277–302.

Koch,Christian(1997),‘Productionmanagementsystems:bricksorclayinthehandsofthesocialactors?’,inC.ClausenandR.Williams(eds),TheSocialShapingofComputer-AidedProductionManagementandComputerIntegratedManufacture,vol.5,COSTA4,SocialSciences,EuropeanCommissionDGXIII,Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities,pp.131–52.

Latour,Bruno(1988)‘Howtowrite“ThePrince”formachinesaswellasmachinations’,inBrianElliot(ed.),TechnologyandSocialProcessEdinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,pp.20–43.

Law,John(1988),‘Theanatomyofasocio-technicalstruggle:thedesignoftheTSR2’,inBrianElliot(ed.),TechnologyandSocialProcess,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,pp.44–69.

Lie,M.andK.H.Sørensen(eds) (1996),MakingTechnologyOurOwn?DomesticatingTechnologyintoEverydayLife,Oslo:ScandinavianUniversityPress.

Lobet-Maris,ClaireandBeatricevanBastelaer(eds)(1999),‘DigitalCitiesFinalReport’,mimeo,CITA,UniversityofNotreDamedelaPaix,Namur,www.info.fundp.ac.be/~cita/publications/SLIM/,accessedFebruary2005.

Mackay,H.,C.Carne,P.Beynon-DaviesandD.Tudhope(2000),‘Reconfiguringtheuser:usingrapidapplicationdevelopment’,SocialStudiesofScience,30(5),737–57.

MacKenzie,DonaldandJudyWajcman(eds)(1985),TheSocialShapingofTechnology:HowtheRefrigeratorGotItsHum,MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.

McLaughlin,J.,P.Rosen,D.SkinnerandA.Webster(1999),ValuingTechnology:Organisations,CultureandChange,London:Routledge.

Morley,D.andR.Silverstone(1990),‘Domesticcommunications:technologiesandmeanings’,Media,CultureandSociety,12(1),31–55.

Nicoll,D.W.(2000),‘Usersascurrency:technologyandmarketingtrialsasnaturalisticenvironments’,TheInformationSociety,16(4),303–10.

Noble,David(1979),‘Socialchoiceinmachinedesign:thecaseofautomaticallycontrolledmachinetools’,inA.Zimbalist(ed.),CaseStudiesontheLabourProcess,NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,pp.18–50.

Norman,D.(1988),ThePsychologyofEverydayThings,NewYork:BasicBooks.Oudshoorn,NellyandTrevorPinch(2003),HowUsersMatter:TheCo-ConstructionofUsers

andTechnologies,Cambridge,MA.:MITPress.Oudshoorn,Nelly,ElsRommesandMarcelleStienstra(2004),‘Configuringtheuseras

everybody:genderanddesignculturesininformationandcommunicationtechnologies’,Science,TechnologyandHumanValues,29(1),30–63.

Pacey,Arnold(1983),TheCultureofTechnology,Oxford:Blackwell.Pinch,TrevorandWieberBijker(1984),‘Thesocialconstructionoffactsandartefacts:or

howthesociologyofscienceandthesociologyoftechnologymightbenefiteachother’,SocialStudiesofScience,14(3),399–441.

Pollock,N.,R.WilliamsandR.Procter(2003)‘Fittingstandardsoftwarepackagestonon-standardorganisations:the“biography”ofanenterprise-widesystem’,TechnologyAnalysisandStrategicManagement,15(3),317–32.

Howcroft 02 chap05 219 1/6/05 11:43:44 am


Procter,RobertN.andR.Williams(1996),‘Beyonddesign:sociallearningandcomputer-supportedcooperativework:somelessonsfrominnovationstudies’,Chapter26,inDanShapiro,MichaelTauberandRolandTraunmueller(eds),TheDesignofComputer-SupportedCooperativeWorkandGroupwareSystems,Amsterdam:North-Holland,pp.445–64.

Rip,Arie,ThomasJ.MisaandJohanSchot(eds)(1995)ManagingTechnologyinSociety:TheApproachofConstructiveTechnologyAssessment,LondonandNewYork:Pinter.

Rogers,E.M.(1983),DiffusionofInnovations,NewYork:FreePress.Rommes,Els (2002) ‘Worldsapart:exclusion-processes inDDS’, inM.Tanabe,P.van

denBesselaarandT.Ishida(eds),DigitalCitiesII:SecondKyotoWorkshoponDigitalCities,Kyoto,Japan,18–20October2001,LectureNotesinComputerScience,vol.2362,Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag,pp.219–32.

Rosenberg,N.(1982),InsidetheBlackBox:TechnologyandEconomics,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Schon,DonaldA.(1983),TheReflectivePractitioner:HowProfessionalsThinkinAction,London:TempleSmith.

Schumm,W.andH.Kocyba(1997),‘Recontextualisationandopportunitiesforparticipation:thesocialshapingof implementation’,inC.ClausenandR.Williams(eds),TheSocialShapingofComputer-AidedProductionManagementandComputer-IntegratedManufacture,vol.5,COSTA4,SocialSciences,EuropeanCommissionDGXIII,Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities,pp.49–62.

Silverstone,R.,E.HirschandD.Morley(1992),‘Informationandcommunicationtechnologiesandthemoraleconomyofthehousehold’,inR.SilverstoneandE.Hirsch(eds),ConsumingTechnologies:MediaandInformationinDomesticSpaces,London:Routledge,ch.1,pp.15–31.

Sørensen,KnutH.(1994),‘AdieuAdorno:themoralemancipationofconsumers’,inA.-J.BergandM.Aune(eds)DomesticTechnologyandEverydayLife:MutualShapingProcesses,vol.COST,SocialSciences,ScienceResearchandDevelopment,EuropeanCommissionDGXIII,Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsof theEuropeanCommunities,pp.157–69.

Sørensen,KnutH.(1996),‘Learningtechnology,constructingculture:socio-technicalchangeassociallearning’STSWorkingPaperno.18/96,CentreforTechnologyandSociety,UniversityofTrondheim.

Sørensen,KnutH.andRobinWilliams(eds)(2002),ShapingTechnology,GuidingPolicy:Concepts,SpacesandTools,Cheltenham,UKandNorthampton,MA,USA:EdwardElgar.

Star,S.L.andG.C.Bowker(1999),SortingThingsOut:ClassificationandItsConsequences,Cambridge,MA.:MITPress.

vanLieshout,M.,T.EgyediandW.E.Bijker(eds)(2001),SocialLearningTechnologies:TheIntroductionofMultimediainEducation,Aldershot:Ashgate.

vanLieshout,M.(1999),‘ThedigitalcityofAmsterdam:betweenpublicinitiativeandprivateenterprise’,inClaireLobet-MarisandBeatricevanBastelaer(eds),1999DigitalCitiesFinalReport,mimeo–FacultéUniversitédeNotreDamedelaPaix,Namur:CITA,ch.7,pp.61–110.

Vedel,Thierry(1994),‘Introductionàunesocio-politiquedesusages’,inAndréVitalis(ed.),Médiasetnouvellestechnologies:pourunesocio-politiquedesusages,Rennes:ÉditionsApogée,pp.13–34.

Wajcman,Judy(1991),FeminismConfrontsTechnology,Cambridge:Polity.Whipp,Richard (1985), Innovationand theAuto Industry:Product,ProcessandWork

Organization,London:Pinter.Williams,Robin,withRogerSlackandJamesStewart(2000),SocialLearninginMultimedia:

FinalReporttoEuropeanCommission,DGXII,Edinburgh,ResearchCentreforSocialSciences:EdinburghUniversity.

Williams,Robin,JamesStewartandRogerSlack(2005),SocialLearningandTechnologicalInnovation:ExperimentingwithInformationandCommunicationTechnologies,Cheltenham,UKandNorthampton,MA,USA:EdwardElgar.

Howcroft 02 chap05 220 1/6/05 11:43:44 am


Winner,Langdon(1980),‘Doartifactshavepolitics?’,Daedalus,109(1),Winter,121–36.ReprintedinDonaldMacKenzieandJudyWajcman(eds)(1985),TheSocialShapingofTechnology,London:OpenUniversityPress,pp.26–38.

Woolgar,S.(1991),‘Configuringtheuser:thecaseof usabilitytrials’,inJ.Law(ed.),ASociologyofMonsters.EssaysonPower,TechnologyandDomination,London:Routledge,pp.57–102.

Howcroft 02 chap05 221 1/6/05 11:43:45 am

Howcroft 02 chap05 222 1/6/05 11:43:45 am

10 the wrong trousers? beyond the design fallacy: social ...€¦ · evolving user requirements....

Documents