skip to main content
10.1145/1880071.1880079acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgroupConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Design methods as discourse on practice

Published: 07 November 2010 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper, we present a view of design methods as discourse on practice. We consider how the deployment of a particular set of design methods enables and constrains not only practical action but also discursive action within the design practice. A case study of agile software development methods illustrates the ways that methods establish conditions for who can speak in the design process and how. We indentify three main kinds of discourse work performed in the invoking of design methods. These are the establishing of ontologies, the authorizing of voices, and the legitimizing of practices. We then discuss implications of this view on methods for CSCW research on the relationship between methods and practice as well as implications for participation in the design process.

References

[1]
Agre, P. Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI. In G. C. Bowker, L. Gasser, S. L. Star and B. Turner, Bridging the Great Divide: Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work. Erlbaum, 1997, 1--17.
[2]
Anderson, R. J. Representations and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design. Human-Computer Interaction 9, 2 (1994), 151--182.
[3]
Beck, K. Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2000.
[4]
Beedle, M., Bennekum, A. V., Cockburn, A., et al. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. http://agilemanifesto.org/.
[5]
Bertelsen, O. Design Artefacts: Towards a design-oriented epistemology. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 12, (2000), 15--27.
[6]
Boje, D. The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, (1991).
[7]
Button, G. and Dourish, P. Technomethodology: paradoxes and possibilities. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (1996).
[8]
Carroll, J. Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers 13, 1 (2000), 43--60.
[9]
Cockburn, A. Crystal clear a human-powered methodology for small teams. (2004).
[10]
Cohn, M. User stories applied: For agile software development. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004.
[11]
Dybå, T. and Dingsøyr, T. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology 50, 9-10 (2008), 833--859.
[12]
Foucault, M. Lecture: 10 January 1979. In The Birth of Biopolitics. 1979.
[13]
Fuller, M. Software studies: a lexicon. The MIT Press, 2008.
[14]
Gerson, E. M. and Star, S. L. Analyzing due process in the workplace. Proceedings of the third ACM-SIGOIS conference on Office automation systems 4, 3 (1986), 70--78.
[15]
Grudin, J. The computer reaches out: the historical continuity of interface design. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1990.
[16]
Hacking, I. Historical ontology. Harvard Univ Pr, 2004.
[17]
Holtzblatt, K. and Beyer, H. Requirements Gathering: The Human Factor. Communications of the ACM 38, 5 (1995), 30--32.
[18]
Lukes, S. Power. New York University Press, 1986.
[19]
Muller, M. J. and Kuhn, S. Participatory design. Communications of the ACM 36, 6 (1993), 24--28.
[20]
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., and Mangalaraj, G. Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM 48, 5 (2005), 78.
[21]
Schwaber, K. and Beedle, M. Agile software development with Scrum. Pearson Education International, 2008.
[22]
Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., and Kaye, J. Reflective design. Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility, ACM (2005), 58.
[23]
Sharrock, W. and Anderson, B. The user as a scenic feature of the design space. Design Studies 15, 1 (1994), 5--18.
[24]
Suchman, L. Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge Univ Pr, 2007.
[25]
Suchman, L. A. Office procedure as practical action: models of work and system design. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 1, 4 (1983), 320--328.
[26]
Truex, D., Baskerville, R., and Travis, J. Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 10, 1 (2000), 53--79.
[27]
Woolgar, S. Configuring the User: the case of usability trials. In J. Law, A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. The Sociological Review Routledge, London, 1991, 57--99.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Interface critique at largeConvergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies10.1177/1354856522113583330:1(49-65)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2022
  • (2022)UX professionals’ learning and usage of UX methods in agileInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107005151:COnline publication date: 1-Nov-2022
  • (2016)"It's More of a Mindset Than a Method"Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/2858036.2858410(4044-4055)Online publication date: 7-May-2016
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
GROUP '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work
November 2010
378 pages
ISBN:9781450303873
DOI:10.1145/1880071
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 November 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. authority
  2. design
  3. discourse
  4. methods
  5. participation
  6. voice

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

GROUP '10
Sponsor:
GROUP '10: ACM 2010 International Conference on Supporting Group Work
November 7 - 10, 2010
Florida, Sanibel Island, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 125 of 405 submissions, 31%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Interface critique at largeConvergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies10.1177/1354856522113583330:1(49-65)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2022
  • (2022)UX professionals’ learning and usage of UX methods in agileInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107005151:COnline publication date: 1-Nov-2022
  • (2016)"It's More of a Mindset Than a Method"Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/2858036.2858410(4044-4055)Online publication date: 7-May-2016
  • (2015)Double binds and double blindsProceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21266(53-64)Online publication date: 17-Aug-2015
  • (2015)A practice-oriented perspective on collaborative creative designInternational Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation10.1080/21650349.2015.10697634:3-4(195-205)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2015

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media