Abstract
This paper reflects on the relationship between whoone designs for and whatone designs in the unstructured space of designing for political change; in particular, for supporting “International Development” with ICT. We look at an interdisciplinary research project with goals and funding, but no clearly defined beneficiary group at start, and how amorphousness contributed to impact. The reported project researched a bridging tool to connect producers with consumers across global contexts and show players in the supply chain and their circumstances. We explore how both the nature of the research and the tool's function became contested as work progressed. To tell this tale, we invoke the idea of boundary objects and the value of tacking back and forth between elastic meanings of the project's artefacts and processes. We examine the project's role in India, Chile and other arenas to draw out ways that it functioned as a catalyst and how absence of committed design choices acted as an unexpected strength in reaching its goals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, T.D. (2007): ‘Settings, arenas and boundary objects: socio–material framings of information practices’, Information Research, vol. 12, no. 4, paper colis10. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/12–4/colis/colis10.html.
Bentley R. and Dourish P. (1995): ‘Medium vs. mechanism: Supporting collaboration through customisation’, in H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad and K. Schmidt (eds.): ECSCW'95, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 133–149.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. S. (1999): Sorting things out: classification and its consequences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Dearden, A. and Light, A. (2008): ‘Designing for e–Social Action: An Application Taxonomy’, in Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference 2008. Available at: http://www3.shu.ac.uk/Conferences/DRS/Proceedings/Proceedings.htm.
Dearden, A. and Rizvi, H. (2008): Adapting Participatory and Agile Software Methods to Participatory Rural Development, PDC'08, Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN, pp. 221–225.
Denzin, N.K. (1989): Interpretive interactionism, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, USA.
Donaldson, K. (2008): ‘Why to be Wary of “Design for Developing Countries”’, Ambidextrous, Spring 2008, pp. 35–37.
Dorst, K (2003): Understanding Design, BIS, Netherlands.
Dunne, A and Raby, F. (1999): Hertzian Tales, Royal College of Art, London, UK.
Erickson, T. (1995): ‘Notes on design practice: stories and prototypes as catalysts for communication’, in J. Carroll (ed.): Scenario–based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 37–58.
Fischer, G. (2003): ‘Meta-Design: Beyond User-Centered and Participatory Design’, in J. Jacko and C. Stephanidis (eds.): HCII' 03, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 88–92.
Fischer, G. (2007): ‘Designing Socio-Technical Environments in Support of Meta-Design and Social Creativity’, CSCL'07, Rutgers University, July, pp. 1–10.
Gaver, W.W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S. and Walker, B. (2004): ‘Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty’, Interactions, vol.11, no.5, pp 53–56.
Greenbaum, J and Kyng, M (eds.) (1991): Design at work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Holden, J. (2004): Capturing Cultural Value. Demos, London. Available at: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/CapturingCulturalValue.pdf.
Irani, L., Dourish, P., Grinter, R. and Phillips, K. (working paper, 2009): Postcolonial Computing.
Kleine, D. (2008): ‘Doing action research on Chilean Fairtrade wine value chains’, Geographical Journal, vol. 174, no. 2, pp. 109–123.
Light, A. (2008): ‘The Challenge of Representing a Sociotechnical System: Fair Tracing and the Value Chain’, Sociotechnical Aspects of Interaction Design, London, May 2008.
Light, A. and Luckin, R. (2008): ‘Social Justice and User-centred Design’, Futurelab Opening Education series.
Light, A., Kleine, D and Vivent, M. (2009): ‘Performing Charlotte: a Tool to bridge Cultures in Participatory Design’ Int. Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 1(2)
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985): Naturalistic inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Muller, M.J, (2002): ‘Participatory Design: the third space in HCI’, in J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds.): The Human-computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp1051 – 1068.
Nardi, B.A. & O'Day, V.L. (1999): Information ecologies: using technology with heart, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Porter, M.E. (1985): Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press, NY.
Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1984): ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’, in N. Cross (ed.): Developments in Design Methodology, Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 135–144.
Roth, W.-M., and McGinn, M. K. (1998): ‘Inscriptions: towards a theory of representing as social practice’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 68, no. 1, pp 35–59.
Star, S. L. (1996): ‘Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems’, in Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (eds.): Cognition and communication at work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 296–318.
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989): ‘Institutional ecology, 'translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 19, no. 3, pp 387–420.
Sterling, B. (2005): Shaping Things, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Suchman, L. (1987): Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this paper
Cite this paper
Light, A., Anderson, T.D. (2009). Research Project as Boundary Object: negotiating the conceptual design of a tool for International Development. In: Wagner, I., Tellioğlu, H., Balka, E., Simone, C., Ciolfi, L. (eds) ECSCW 2009. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-854-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-854-4_2
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-853-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-854-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)