Abstract
Cooperation and collaboration are generally an inherent part of everyday practice, and particularly among nurses. However, the technologies that support these practices are still inadequate. In this study, we present and discuss the use of classifications in nursing practice, and highlight the collective re-construction of classifications that emerge over time. Specifically, we study how the negotiation between global classifications and local practice takes place with long-term use, and depict this dynamic interaction as a pendulum movement. Furthermore, we characterize this standardization as a collective re-construction grounded in everyday practice. This paper contributes to the body of research on this topic by doing the following: (i) characterizing the process of standardization as a pendulum movement; (ii) drawing out theoretical perspectives for standardization as a collective, emerging accomplishment; (iii) stating the practical implications of our perspective. Finally, we compare the local adjustment (local classifications) discussed in this study with social classifications (social tagging), and suggest how social classification may lead to increased flexibility in the use of classifications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Benner, P. (2004): “Designing formal classification systems to better articulate knowledge, skills, and meanings in nursing practice.” Am J Crit Care 13(5)Sep: 426–430.
Bjorvell, C., R. Wredling, et al. (2002): “Long-term increase in quality of nursing documentation: effects of a comprehensive intervention.” Scand J Caring Sci 16(1)Mar: 34–42.
Bowker, G. and S. Star (2000): Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambrigde, The MIT Press. Cambrigde, MA.
Bulechek, G., H. Batcher, et al. (2008): Nursing Intervention Classification. Mosby Elsevier, St.Lous.
Carlile, P. R. (2004): “Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries.” Organization Science 15(5) 555–568.
Ellingsen, G., E. Monteiro, et al. (2007): “Standardisation of work: co-constructed practice.” The Information Society 23(5) 309–326.
Gordon, M. (1998): “Nursing nomenclature and classification system development.” Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 30.
Halpin, H., V. Robu, et al. (2007): The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. WWW2007, Canada, ACM.
Hanseth, O. and N. Lundberg (2001): “Designing Work Oriented Infrastructures.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 10(3–4) 347–372.
Hepsø, V., E. Monteiro, et al. (2009): “Ecologies of e-Infrastructures.” Journal of the AIS 10(5) 430–446.
Hinrichs, J., V. Pipek, et al. (2005): Context grabbing: assigning metadata in large document collections. ECSCW 2005, Springer.
International, N. (2007): Nursing Diagnosis: Definition & Classification. NANDA International, Philadelphia.
Klein, H. and M. D. Myers (1999): “A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information system.” MIS Quarterly 23(1) 67–94.
Meum, T., G. Wangensteen, et al. (2010): “Standardization--the iron cage of nurses’ work?” Stud Health Technol Inform 157, 85–90.
Moen, A., S. B. Henry, et al. (1999): “Representing nursing judgements in the electronic health record.” J Adv Nurs 30(4)Oct: 990–997.
NNO (2009): NNO Strategy 2009 -2013. eHealth - Everybody’s responsiblity and in everyone’s interest. Norwegian Nurses Organisation.
Norwegian Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2008): Samspill 2.0. Nasjonal strategi for elektronisk samhandling i helse- og omsorgssektoren 2008 - 2013. Nasjonal streategi.
Orlikowski, W. and D. Hoffman. (1997). “An Imporvisational Model for Change Managment: The Case of Groupware Technologies.” 1997, from http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CCSWP191/CCSWP191.html.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1994): “Categories: concept, content, and context.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 3(1) 73–78.
Peters, I. (2009): Folksonomies: Indexing and Retrieval in the Web 2.0. KG Saur Verlag Gmbh & Co, Berlin.
Schmidt, K. and L. Bannon (1992): “Taking CSCW seriously.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 1(1)7–40.
Schmidt, S. and R. Werle (1998): Coordinating technology: studies in the international standardization of telecommunications. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Simone, C. and M. Sarini (2001): Adaptability of Classification schemes in Cooperation: what does it mean? ECSCW01, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Bonn, Germany.
Timmermans, S. and M. Berg (1997): "Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols." Social studies of science 27(2) 273–305.
Ure, J., R. Procter, et al. (2009): “The Development of Data Infrastructures for eHealth: A Socio-Technical Perspective.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(5) 415–429.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this paper
Cite this paper
Meum, T., Monteiro, E., Ellingsen, G. (2011). The Pendulum of Standardization. In: Bødker, S., Bouvin, N., Wulf, V., Ciolfi, L., Lutters, W. (eds) ECSCW 2011: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 24-28 September 2011, Aarhus Denmark. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-913-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-913-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-912-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-913-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)