Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Multiple Intersecting Sites of Design in CSCW Research

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

CSCW is fundamentally an interdisciplinary research endeavour investigating the basic nature of collaborative work with the aim of designing collaborative technologies. Yet, it is not pre-given where CSCW design takes place. This leads to the simple, yet important, question: Where can we find the sites of design in CSCW research? In other words, where does CSCW design actually take place? To answer this question, we follow a CSCW researcher as she creates various connections across multiple sites of design, takes on various roles, and engages with different types of interventions. We unpack the complex interplay between multiple intersecting sites of design and the transformation processes that result from the connections created. We explore the different types of interventions that were enacted by the CSCW researcher during a longitudinal study of the collaborative work and the design of healthcare systems within a paediatric emergency department. We further unpack the multiple intersecting sites of design, and show how the researcher exercises different analytical sensibilities, transforming the various design sites. We argue that the classic CSCW discussion about the relationship between ethnography and design no longer fully captures what a contemporary CSCW researcher does when she engages in various types of interventions across multiple sites of design in an interdisciplinary manner. Thus, we suggest distributing what constitutes a field site in CSCW research, including changing how we characterize roles and interventions in CSCW research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvesson, M. and K. Skjöldberg (2000). Reflexive methodology. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, V. (2000). Constructing the field: Ethnography fieldwork in the contemporary world: London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. J. (1997). Work, ethnography and system design. Encyclopaedia of microcomputing, vol. 20, pp. 159–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balka, E. (2003). ACTION for Health Proposal Proposal: Executive Summary. URL: http://www.sfu.ca/act4hlth/about_project/ACTION4Hlth_project%20proposal.pdf, Retrieved June, 2014.

  • Bjørn, P. and E. Balka (2007). Health Care Categories have Politics too: Unpacking the Managerial Agendas of Electronic Triage Systems. ECSCW 2007: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Limerick, Ireland, 24–28 September: London: Springer, pp. 371–390

  • Bjørn, P. and M. Hertzum (2011). Artefactual Multiplicity: A Study of Emergency-Department Whiteboards. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 20, nos. 1–2, pp. 93–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn, P. and C. Østerlund (2014). Sociomaterial-Design: Bounding technologies in practice: London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn, P. and K. Rødje (2008). Triage drift: A worksplace study in a pediatric emergency department. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 395–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn, P., S. Burgoyne, V. Crompton, T. MacDonald, B. Pickering, and S. Munro (2009). Boundary factors and contextual contingencies: Configuring electronic templates for health care professionals. European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 18, pp. 428–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg, J. and H. Karasti (2013). Reflections on 25 years or ethnography in CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 22, nos. 4–6, pp. 373–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. and K. Lyytinen (2004). Information Systems Research as Design: Identity, Process, and Narrative. Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research: IFIP International Federation for Information Processing. Boston: Springer, vol 143, pp. 53–68.

  • Buscher, M., S. Gill, P. Mogensen, D. Shapiro (2001). Landscapes of practice: Bricolage as a method for situated design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Button, G. and R. Harper (1996). The relevance of ‘work-practice’ for design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crabtree, A., M. Rouncefield, and Peter Tolmie (2012). Doing design ethnography. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Computer Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’06), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, New York: ACM Press, pp. 541–550.

  • Foley, D. (2010). Critical ethnography: The reflexive turn. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 469–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, D. (1999). It’s just a matter of common sense: Ethnography as Invisible Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 8, nos. 1–2, pp. 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. (1988). CSCW’88: Report on the conference & review of the proceedings. SIGCHI Bulletin, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 80–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. and R. Grinter (1995). Ethnography and design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 55–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, R. (2000). The organisation in ethnography. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartswood, M., R. Procter, S. Roger, A. Voss, M. Buscher, and M. Rouncefield (2002). Co-Realization: Towards a Principled Synthesis of Ethnomethodology and Participatory Design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jourde, C. (2009). The ethnographic sensibility: Overlooked authoritarian dynamics and islamic ambivalences in West Africa: Chapter 9. Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of power. E. Schatz, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kensing, F. and J. Blomberg (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 7, nos. 3–4, pp. 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kensing, F., J. Simonsen, et al. (2009). MUST: A method for participatory design. Human computer interaction, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review Anthrology, vol. 24, pp. 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. and D. Cushman (1982). Ethnographies as texts. Annual Review of Anthrology, vol. 11, pp. 25–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. and G. Mead (2005). Editoral: Self-reflective practice and first-person action research. Action Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesman, J. (2007). Disturbing observations as a basis for collaborative research. Science as culture, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, B. (1997). The use of ethnographic methods. In M. Helander, T. Landauer and P. Prabhu (eds): Handbook of Human Computer interaction. North Holland, Elsevier, pp. 361–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, S. (1996). Resistance and the Problem of Ethnographic Refusal. In T. J. McDonald (eds): The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 281–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pader, E. (2006). Seeing with an ethnographic sensibility: Explorations beneath the surface of public policies. In D. Yanow and P. Schwartz-Shea (eds): Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. NY, USA, M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Armonk, pp. 194–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D., R. Harper, and M. Rouncefield (2007). Fieldwork for design: Theory and practice. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rode, J. (2011). Reflexivity in digital anthropology. CHI ’11 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver, BC. New York: ACM Press, pp. 123–132

  • Schatz, E. (2007). Methods Are Not Tools: Ethnography and the Limits of Multiple-Methods Research. Working Paper 12, Committee on Concepts and Methods, International Political Science Association.

  • Schatz, E. (2009). Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of power, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Schmidt, K. (2000). The Critical role of Workplace Studies in CSCW. In C. Heath, J. Hindmarsh and P. Luff: Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing Design. Cambridge, Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, K. and L. Bannon (1992). Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 1, nos. 1–2, pp. 7–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1994). Do Categories Have Politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1995). Making Work Visible. Communications of the ACM, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A., S. Lindtner, K. Anderson, and P. Dourish (2014). Multisited design: An analytical lens for Transnational HCI. Human-computer interaction, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 78–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, V., M. Rohde, et al. (2011). Engaging with practices: Design case studies as a research framework in CSCW. Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work CSCW. Hangzhou, China, New York: ACM Press, pp. 505–512.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper emerged as a result of discussions with participants at the International Workshop of Infrastructure in Healthcare held in Tromsø in June 2013. Shaping and contributing to the argument were valuable discussions with Paul Dourish, George Marcus, Judith Gregory, Gillian Hayes, Melissa Mazmania, and Yunan Chen, while Pernille Bjørn was on sabbatical at University of California, Irvine. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for providing us with detailed comments and suggestions, as well as the supportive and extremely valuable discussions we had with Kjeld Schmidt helping us to articulate our argument. Also we greatly appreciate the comments we received from Dave Randall on early drafts of this paper. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the collaboration with the healthcare professionals during the EDIS project: In particular we would like to mention: Sue Burgoyne, Vicky Crompton, Teri MacDonald, Barbe Pickering, and Sue Munro.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Pernille Bjørn & Nina Boulus-Rødje

  2. University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

    Pernille Bjørn

Authors
  1. Pernille Bjørn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nina Boulus-Rødje
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pernille Bjørn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjørn, P., Boulus-Rødje, N. The Multiple Intersecting Sites of Design in CSCW Research. Comput Supported Coop Work 24, 319–351 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-015-9227-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-015-9227-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation