Abstract
How are we to understand advanced information technologies at a time where their use is becoming more and more widespread? To address this question, the author analyses the discourse of cooperative design. In doing this she draws on recent feminist thinking and her own experiences from a research project. She discusses the meaning of concepts such as experience, users, computers and politics in this discourse. She particularly stresses alternative ways of understanding the political nature of design and that multiple perspectives, including descriptive and historical ones, are relevant to both developing the technology and to deepening our understanding of the politics of intervention in design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akrich, M. and Latour, B. (1992). “A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies.” In W. E. Bijker and J. Law (eds)Shaping Technology/Building Society. USA: The MIT Press.
Berg, M. (forthcoming) “Order(s) and Disorder(s): Of Protocols and Medical Practices.” In Marc Berg and Anne Marie Mol (eds)Differences in Medicine.
Braverman, H. (1974).Labor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994).Designing Engineers. USA: The MIT Press.
Bødker, S. (1991).Through the Interface—A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bowker, G. (1994).Science on the Run. Information Management and Industrial Geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920–1940. USA: The MIT Press.
Bødker, S., Christiansen, E., Ehn, P. et al. (1993).The AT-Project-practical research in cooperative design. DAIMI PB-454. Computer Science Department, Aarhus University.
Ehn, P. (1988).Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Falköping: Arbetslivcentrum.
Fink, H. (1990). “Naturens enhed og videnskabernes. Kulturforskning som naturforskning.” In H. Fink and K. Hastrup (eds.)Tanken om enhed i videnskaberne. Herning: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Fujimura, J. (1992). “On Methods, Ontologies, and Representation in the Sociology of Science: Where do we stand?” in David Maines (ed)Social Organization and Social Process: Essays in Honor of Anselm L. Strauss. Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (1991).Design at Work. Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grønbæk, K., Kyng, M. and Mogensen, P. (1993) “CSCW Challenges: Cooperative Design in Engineering Projects.” InCommunications of the ACM, June, 36(4).
Haraway, D. (1991).Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. USA: Routledge.
Harding, S. (1986).The Science Question in Feminism. USA: Open University Press.
Ihde, D. (1979).Technics and Praxis. Dordrecht Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Jungk, R. and Müllert, N. (1987).Future Workshops: How to create desirable futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.
Kjaer, A. and Markussen, R. (1989). “Demokrati og metode.” In Oluf Danielsen and Inger Lytje (es)Kvalitative metoder i systemudvikling og følgeforskning. Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Aarhus.
Kyng, M. (1994).Making Representations Work. Paper presented at HICSS.
Latour, B. (1991). “Technology is society made durable.” In J. Law (ed.)A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Sociological Review Monograph 38. London: Routledge.
Markussen, R. and Foged, B. (1984)Det fleksible køn. Tiderne Skifter: Viborg.
Markussen, R. (1994a). “A historical perspective on work practices and technology.” In P. B. Andersen, B. Holmqvist and J. F. Jensen (eds.)The computer as medium. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Markussen, R. (1994b). “Dilemmas in Cooperative Design.” In R. Trigg, S.I. Anderson and E.A. Dykstra-Ericson (Eds.)Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference. Chapel Hill NC USA.
Markussen, R. (1995). “Constructing Easiness. Historical perspectives on work, computerization and women.” In Leigh Star (ed.)The Cultures of Computing. London: Routledge.
Ricoeur, P. (1988).Time and Narrative vol. 3. USA: The University of Chicago Press.
Rouncefield, M., Hughes, J.A., Rodden, T and Viller, S. (1994). “Working with “Constant Interruption” CSCW and the Small Office.” InTranscending Boundaries. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Chapel Hill,NC USA. ACM Press.
Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (1993).Participatory Design. Principles and Practices. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shapiro, D. (1994). “The Limits of Ethnography: Combining Social Sciences for CSCW.” InTranscending Boundaries. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Chapel Hill, NC USA. ACM Press.
Scott, J. W. (1992). “Experience”, in Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott (eds.)Feminsts Theorize the Political. USA: Routledge.
Star, L. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions. In J. Law (ed.)A Sociology of Mansters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Sociological Review Monograph 38, London: Routledge.
Stengers, I. (1994).Metamorphoses of Science. Feminism and Shifts of Paradigms. Working Paper 7. Feminist Research Network On—Gender-Nature—Culture. Odense. Odense University.
Suchman, L. (1994). “Working Relations of Technology Production and Use.”. InThe Journal of CSCW No. 2. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Williams, R. (1983).Keywords New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Markussen, R. Politics of intervention in design: Feminist reflections on the Scandinavian tradition. AI & Soc 10, 127–141 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01205278
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01205278