Final version (July 1994) of a Book Chapter to appear in a collection edited by G.Bowker, L. Gasser, L. Star &W. Turner in late 1994, based on invited presentations at Workshop on "Social science research, technical systems and cooperative work" CNRS, Paris, March, 1983.
Dwelling in the "Great Divide": The Case of HCI & CSCW
Liam J. Bannon
CSCW Research Centre
Dept. of Computer Science & Information Systems
University of Limerick
Ireland
A major theme for the papers in this volume is the development of frameworks for the analysis and understanding of the world which re-conceptualise the set of overly simplistic distinctions that have held sway in the social and technical sciences for a long period. Master narratives in the field of science, technology and society such as social relativism or technological determinism, are being discarded as being too crude and superficial. Instead, a wide variety of approaches are appearing that re-invent concepts of both the social and the technical, and attempt to deal with their inevitable and inextricable interweaving. For example, we have studies that extend our concepts of agency and actors and networks - Callon’s "actor-network" model (Callon, 1991). On the other hand, we have ethnomethodological studies on how technology is literally constructed, by and through the actions of people in specific organisational settings (cf. contributions in Button, 1993). In some of these approaches, new vocabularies are being constructed to describe objects and relations in these newly discovered or more correctly, newly named, universes of discourse.
This essay, while not engaging in these larger issues concerning the construction of new discourses, has a more modest goal, that is, to describe the state of affairs in two scientific fields that are undeniably interdisciplinary, and to see what lessons we can learn from the successes and failures of these interdisciplinary enterprises. In other words, I wish to try and provide some answers to the questions posed by Leigh Star in her introductory remarks to the original workshop on which these papers are based, namely, how can we overcome the "great divide" between the social and technical sciences and learn to live, in a sense, in-between them. The essay investigates this question by discussing two areas of interdisciplinary activity - namely human-computer interaction (HCI) and computer - supported cooperative work (CSCW) - in which I have been directly involved for a number of years. In each case, a variety of viewpoints on the nature of the field is presented, followed by dissection of a key concept utilised within these areas. While it appears unquestionably the case that there are serious difficulties with these concepts, certainly as regards their widespread acceptance and utilisation within each area, it is also the case that somehow, despite the lack of agreement about concepts, progress is being made in each field. It is argued that one of the reasons why there is some movement in each field is due to the pressures and concerns of practitioners (designers and users) who have real problems that they seek answers to, rather than to the development of any more inclusive or grounded conceptual apparatus. This is not to argue for the elimination of theory, but to realise that in the areas studied, the gap between theory and application is vast, and that much more work is required in developing better understandings of the nature of the phenomena under discussion - classifications, taxonomies, etc., as a prelude to further theorising. In a sense, both areas require an engineering rather than a "scientific" approach, especially given the constructive nature of the two fields discussed here. Some implications of such a position, regarding the nature of interdisciplinarity, and the role of disciplines in defining the boundaries of a field are discussed at the end of the paper.
1. First Case: Understanding the "Human-Computer Interaction" (HCI) field
Over the last decade the area of human-computer interaction has grown enormously, both within academic research environments and corporate research laboratories. The field attracts interest from very disparate concerns, a variety of academic disciplines, principally cognitive psychology, but also educational psychology, organisational studies, graphic design, media studies, software engineering, artificial intelligence, (more recently sociology) and differing groups involved in the production and consumption of computer based goods - manufacturers, marketing people, labour unions, consumer groups. Is it any wonder that there is some confusion over what exactly constitutes this new "field"!
The intent of this section is to show how a community of people, both practitioners and academic researchers, developed the field of HCI over a number of years and gave the field some identity and shape, without, surprisingly, having any apparent shared understanding of the exact focus of the new field. We examine this specifically with respect to a central concept in the HCI area, namely, the very concept of the "interface". While undoubtedly this lack of an agreed meaning has caused some problems, and led to various kinds of boundary disputes in the field, my point here is to note how at the same time this under-defined concept gave shape to a community, and thus in some sense served as a "boundary object", in Star's sense of the term (Star & Griesemer, 1989). The "interface" and the HCI area more generally served as a frame within which a variety of groups could work, despite their differing perspectives. At the same time, the problems associated with the differing interpretations of the term have over time also lead to some of the problems inherent in the enterprise and these too can now be seen in the field. However, attention to the needs of practitioners in the field has helped the field to focus on relevant issues, and kept the field from becoming bogged down in what could have become just sterile academic debates about basic definitions.
Let me now document some of these points more clearly. In Section 1.1 several competing viewpoints on the nature of the HCI field are presented. This is followed by a documentation of the confusion existing in the HCI literature concerning the very fundamental idea of "interface". In Section 1.3 we then note how, despite the lack of an agreed terminology or conceptual frame, the field can be described as having made progress over the past decade, and to have shifted in its concerns, due principally to their listening to the voices of people engaged in practical activities at the coal face, rather than confining themselves to arcane disputes about concepts, fuelled by disciplinary biases. It is in such a manner that, perhaps, real interdisciplinarity can occur - when it is driven by content questions, not disciplinary concerns.
1.1 Perspectives on HCI
a) HCI as simply an "umbrella" term
For many people, the label HCI simply denotes a very ill-defined category of issues and studies that are concerned in some way with the relation between individuals and computers. According to this perspective, the field is not characterised by any particular conceptual framework or methodological approach. The HCI "community" comprises people from many diverse disciplinary backgrounds, with a range of interests stemming from theoretical to pragmatic concerns. On this viewpoint, there is no such thing as a set of shared definitions of basic concepts for the field, not are they required. Simply helping to bring together these different interest groups, for example at the annual ACM SIGCHI conference where literally thousands of people - researchers, consumers, vendors, developers - put out their stalls and mix and match is useful in and of itself, so nothing further is needed or required. The community thus formed can be characterised simply by the fact that they attend such gatherings, rather than sharing any conceptual framework.
b) HCI as a new research field
For others, the emergence of HCI as a separate entity from the human factors (HF) field, one of its progenitors, in the early eighties, signalled that there was something distinct about the new field. It was setting out a stall that focused on computers in particular, rather than general machines, and also explicitly addressed (albeit, perhaps in a rudimentary way) the need to understand how people could or should interact with computers. For many people who accepted this perspective a key element was the move towards a more cognitive approach to ergonomics, as distinct from the earlier "knobs and dials" behavioural approach of much human factors work. A number of academic groups adopted HCI as a legitimate focus for education and research activity, based primarily in psychology and computer science departments. The older field was seen as lacking in theoretical motivation by cognitive scientists. What was required, it was claimed, was a better cognitive coupling between the human and the new universal machine, the computer, and not simply improved surface characteristics of displays. This approach argued for a principled position on the nature of "users", who were to be viewed as information processing devices that could be studied in ways akin to the study of other information-processing devices, namely computers. Thus the field could be built on the bedrock of cognitive psychology and computing concepts, and appropriate methods of investigation of HCI phenomena should consist of experimental investigations and simulation studies.
c) HCI as the user interface
The simplest and strictest definition of what HCI is about has been adopted by those who accept that the term is synonymous with the study of the design and use of interfaces to computer systems. This particular approach is prevalent among many computer scientists, especially in the software engineering area. There is a clear distinction made between the interface and the application, with work on the functionality being the province of the engineer, whereas some outside advice on the interface, e.g. from psychologists, might be permissible. For example, Robinson (1990) notes: "The interface stands as a defining and sustaining boundary for the business of HCI, both conceptually and literally." This issue, of how the interface is actually constituted, is discussed in Section 1.2 below. In this approach, there is an interest in developing guidelines for engineering the interface, developing dialogue frameworks, etc.
d) HCI as a paradigm shift
Yet another viewpoint found in the community is one which, while agreeing that what is going on under the rubric of HCI is more than simply an unruly collection of disciplinary and marketing side-shows, does not believe that the field is defined simply by issues of what the "interface" is. Rather this view argues that what is common amongst those involved in the area is an explicit recognition of the importance of the human element in computing, with concerns about the alternative forms of interaction possible between people and machines being a legitimate topic of study. It does not attempt to regulate or sharply delineate the area, but is content to advocate the importance of taking a "user-centred" approach towards the design of computer systems. This approach would accord with my own view.
Given such a variety of perspectives evident among the HCI community - loosely constituted, it is perhaps not too surprising to discover, when one turns to examine in some detail some of the basic concepts utilised within the HCI field, that one does not have to dig deep in order to discover some ambiguities and uncertainties about the supposed core concern of HCI, namely, the "interface". Let us investigate this more closely.
1.2 Uncovering the "Interface"
(the interface is) "that part of the program that determines how the user and the computer communicate." Newman & Sproull (1979)
"Instead of seeing it (the interface) as a part of the program I propose that we view it as a relation between program and use context....It does not make sense to say that a system in isolation has an interface; interfaces "emerge" when the system is used." Andersen (1990)
As indicated in the quotes above, the interface concept is open to a number of interpretations. It is often not even clear if people are referring to the "computer interface" or the "user interface" when they talk of the "interface" as if it is a well-defined entity. While the latter term is most often used, this distinction is not merely academic: "A user's interface to a computer does not match or complement a computer's interface to a user. ..Our equation of "the user interface" to software and I/O devices means that "user interface" denotes the computer's interface to the user, not the user's interface to the computer" Grudin (1990). What Grudin calls the "computer's interface to the user" can be viewed as the (traditional) software engineering view of the interface (documented in (c) above), to emphasise that this view of the interface is shared among a professional community. This community has an overlapping set of interests with that of the heterogeneous HCI community, although it has a specific disciplinary orientation. Viewing the interface in this way is problematic in terms of understanding how the overall human-computer interface is perceived by members of the user community, as the users' view of the interface to the system has this larger compass that goes outside of the computer hardware and software itself. Thus one source of misunderstanding of the term interface has been uncovered, one which is based on different understandings of the inclusiveness of the term and of the perspective from which the "interface " is viewed, - be it from that of the software engineer or that of users.
While the HCI area is acknowledged to be an interdisciplinary one, the loudest voice has usually belonged to psychologists. A line of demarcation between programmers and psychologists in software design is sometimes drawn by focusing on the separation of the "interface" from the underlying "functionality" of the system. As noted by Robinson (1990), this traditional conceptualisation can be described thus: "The interface stands as the boundary between what is the work of HCI and what is the work of the software engineer. The "true" nature of the system - what it does - is defined by the state of the software 'behind' the interface...the neutral and objective functionality of the 'internal' state (of the machine) may be realised by alternative interface designs" Such an approach has had the unfortunate effect of reifying the interface concept for much of the HCI community as the prime object of study. This reification has also tended to result in an undue emphasis on rather "surface" aspects of interface design, within many of the different interpretations of the interface that are commonly used. Yet, paradoxically, this reification of the interface as the domain of HCI has actually marginalised its impact. For example, Seymour Papert (1990) recently commented: "I think the interface is part of a larger thing. I think that putting the emphasis on the interface somewhat confuses the issues. ....if only the interface (is changed), and what lies behind it and what you can do with the system isn't changed, you're only scratching the surface. The interface is only the surface"(Papert, 1990).
More recently, this particular view of what the "interface" is has become the subject of debate within the HCI community. Specifically, the interface-functionality separation is seen as misleading. As Laurel (1990) notes:" The noun, interface, is taken to be a discrete and tangible thing that we can map, draw, design, implement, and attach to an existing bundle of functionality. One of the goals of this book is to explode that notion." It can be seen as a possible territorial division of responsibility between software engineers and HCI people. In designing a program or system, we obviously must pay attention to the needs of the user and the use situation, and to how the design will meet these needs. The idea that in such situations a neat separation between interface and functionality can be accomplished is open to question. The connotation of the interface as a "surface" issue is seen as marginalising the concerns of the intended users of computer systems. For example, Don Norman, one of the doyens of the HCI community, comments: "......What's wrong with interfaces? The question for one. The interface is the wrong place to begin. It implies you already have done all the rest and want to patch it up to make it pretty for the user. That attitude is what is wrong with the interface ....In the future I want less emphasis on "interfaces" and more on appropriate tools for the task." (Norman, 1990). Similar concerns can be found elsewhere in recent years, for example, in the papers by Gorasson et al. (1987) entitled The interface is often not the problem, and in Bannon & Bødker's (1991) article entitled Beyond the Interface.
Faced with this seeming confusion about a central HCI concept, there have been a number of calls for clarifying this and other terms in HCI, through the development of a common dictionary of concepts, to which all communities must adhere in their discussion of computer systems. Such a grand unifying vision is, I believe, fraught with many kinds of problems. The problems cannot be resolved simply by making more exact definitions. This is because the use of the terms is spread across a variety of disciplines, and it is impossible to enforce a single meaning of a term already in use across these quite distinct, even if overlapping communities. The least that we could do would be try to make the contexts of use of the term clearer for all the parties involved, so that they can recognise that use of the same term does not imply similar meanings. On the other hand, in practical development work these distinct communities should be able to cooperate, and in order to do so the plain recognition of differences is not enough, but the different contexts of use should be related and different meanings bridged, at least locally and temporally. Note that this does not imply that people thus "share" concepts but that they can get by in specific situations. It is thus possible for different groups to be aware of different uses of concepts and take these into account. This is quite different to engaging in terminological wrangles based on arguments from first principles. It is my contention that many disputes about the field have more to do with disciplinary turf battles than with any serious issue of concern to practitioners. Nevertheless, I do see a number of changes in the field of HCI, brought about, not through the academic refinement of ideas and concepts, but rather driven by the concerns of designers and users of computer-based systems. Let us look at some of these shifts in HCI in more detail.
1.3 The changing nature of HCI
Despite the advances that have been made in various arenas of human computer interaction, there has been serious criticism of the field for its lack of relevance to practitioners in systems design. There is no clear set of principles that has emerged from this work. The experience of certain designers has been loosely codified, various design guide-lines are available, and a large number of evaluations of existing systems have been produced, but the attempt to place this applied science on a more rigorous footing has been difficult. The general lack of contact of the work with "real world" design situations has been noted. From the perspective of the designer, the work to date can highlight some pertinent issues, but we are still impoverished in our search for new ways of thinking about and developing systems. It is precisely because of these problems that I believe there is a current interest in "alternative" approaches - both in conceptual frameworks (from psychological to sociological), research methodologies (from lab experiments to field studies) and design practice (from sequential to iterative design models) - to the study of HCI . The net has been cast wide, and the relevance of a variety of different approaches to the study of work, technology and organisation have been explored. Such approaches as socio-cultural activity theory, the ethnomethodological approach, work analysis methods, and participative design methods have been the subject of debate and discussion. Let us track some of these discussions briefly. What holds the assorted collection of topics together, in my view, is that they all are pertinent to understanding how we can hopefully contribute to a better understanding of technology in use, and give insight and suggestions for change in the actual nature of the HCI design process itself, so as to incorporate the voices of actors that have been voiceless previously.
a) Searching for alternative conceptual frameworks
Much work on the relation between people and computers, concerning design, use and evaluation of systems, has assumed a "cognitive science" perspective. Despite the often exaggerated claims made by proponents of this perspective as to its achievements, a number of people have admitted there are problems in this approach. Donald Norman, one of the pioneers in the field, as early as 1980 wrote a prescient paper that pointed to the gaps existing in the then fledgling new science (Norman, 1980). He was particularly concerned about the basic building block in this approach, which he refers to as the model human-information processor.. " The problem seemed to be in the lack of consideration of other aspects of human behaviour, of interaction with other people and with the environment, of the influence of the history of the person, or even the culture, and of the lack of consideration of the special problems and issues confronting an animate organism that must survive as both an individual and as a species..."(pg. 2). Ten years later, much of this critique remains unanswered if we investigate the state of the field today. What has been changing, at least in some circles, is the uncritical acceptance of this paradigm as the only, or even a sufficient one to handle the queries he raises. Some critics focus on the individualistic nature of much cognitivist theorising, arguing for greater attention to the setting in which cognition takes place and how it is shaped by this setting: "Cognition observed in everyday practice is distributed -stretched over, not divided among- mind, body, activity and culturally organised settings (which include other actors)" (Lave, 1988). Some have argued for a radically different epistemology for the discipline, eschewing the "Cartesian model" for a hermeneutical interpretation. Such a radical critique has been popularised within the computing fraternity by the work of Winograd and Flores starting out from the work of Heidegger, Maturana and others. The cognitive paradigm has also been attacked at a foundational level by certain sociologists, particularly those who favour an ethnomethodological approach ( see, e.g. Coulter, 1983). Yet another long-standing critique of Cartesianism comes from the dialectical materialist tradition within Soviet thought, developed from ideas about activity present in the work of Hegel, then elaborated by Marx and applied within a psychological framework by psychologists such as Vygotsky (1978) and Leontiev. Backhurst (1988) has referred to this alternative tradition as "communitarian" in distinction to the "individualistic" Cartesian tradition. Such an approach requires that we understand the social as a prerequisite to understanding the individual, the opposite of what many theorists and researchers, in the human and even branches of the social sciences, have argued previously. The use of this approach in HCI is currently being developed (Bannon & Bødker, 1991, Bødker, 1989, Kuutti & Bannon, 1993).
b) Recognising that "users" and settings are heterogeneous
The concept of computer "users" has tended to mask a large variety of different kinds of work activities with computers under a generic label that ignores the different aptitudes, interests and even more importantly, skills possessed by people, as well as the differences in their context of use. The majority of experimental studies in HCI focus on first time learners of computer systems or applications. Typically performance is monitored for the first hour or two on the system. Exceptionally, perhaps use of an application is observed over a few days, but rarely for periods longer, such as weeks, never mind years. While granting that there is some need for studying such users, the paucity of studies that are concerned with the process of development of expertise with a computer application is remarkable. The issue is not simply that expert performance needs further examination, but that we need to pay greater attention to how users become skilled in the use of the computer application. What obstacles or incentives are there within the system to encourage the growth of competence? Additional issues relate to the difference in system learning and use between freshman University students and particular work groups with their own already established set of work practices which may hinder or support learning and development of competence on the computer system. The issue here is not one of "typing" users into psychological categories, but rather of understanding the different contexts in which people utilise computers in order to accomplish their work, in terms of the tasks involved, the work setting, and the length of time people have been doing this work.
The majority of HCI research studies to date also take as their focus the individual user working on a computer system. This research focus totally neglects the way work actually gets done in most work situations, and the importance of coordination and cooperation between people in accomplishing their work. The applied field has been more astute than the theoretical here, for system designers have been more aware of this coordinated aspect of work activity and have tried to support it at some level, albeit rather crudely. With a better understanding of how work gets accomplished coming from social science researchers such as Suchman, Wynn , Blomberg and others, designers have been developing a better "model" or understanding of the work from which to build. The word model is in quotes here because of course, what such research shows is that a strict model of human action in most work situations is not possible or appropriate, rather, human action is driven by the concrete situation that exists at any moment and is constantly changing. This implies that we should support office workers in their activities, rather than building office automation systems. Extending the focus of concern from the human-computer dyad to larger groups of people and machines engaged in collaborative tasks has become an important area for research in the new field of Computer Support for Cooperative Work (CSCW), which is discussed further below.
c) Moving from the Laboratory to the Workplace
Much of the early research done in the HCI field was confined to rather small controlled experiments, with the presumption that the findings could be generalised to other settings. It has become increasingly apparent that such studies suffer from a variety of problems that limit their usefulness in any practical setting. Firstly, by the time these studies are done advances in technology often make the original concerns outdated. Also important contextual cues for the accomplishment of tasks were often omitted in this transfer from the real world to the laboratory, and so the results of the lab studies became difficult to apply elsewhere. Increasingly, attention is shifting to in situ studies, in an effort to "hold in" the complexity of the real world situations, and a variety of observational techniques are being employed to capture activities, especially video. This concern with understanding the context in which work gets done, and the role of technology in supporting or disrupting these activities, has lead to the need for researchers skilled in observational techniques, such as ethnographers, coming from sociological and anthropological backgrounds, in the HCI/CSCW field.
d) Re-conceptualising the Design Process - Scandinavian initiatives
The field of HCI encompasses aspects of the design process, and is specifically concerned with the relation between user requirements and systems design. This is an area where it has been acknowledged that existing methods of requirements analysis, and the tools available to support analysts and users are inadequate. Likewise, their is growing concern about the methodologies for assuring what is termed "user input" to design specifications. Many of the criticisms of such approaches have been orchestrated by Scandinavian researchers, who have argued for an alternative model over a number of years (see Bjerknes, Ehn and Kyng, 1987, Ehn, 1988a, Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991). These critiques cover a wide range of issues, only some of which are mentioned here, as fuller accounts of this approach are presented in this volume (Bødker & Markussen).
Currently, workers are often asked to evaluate the descriptions made of their work processes by analysts, yet this is often unproductive, as the representational formalisms adopted are often obscure to the workers. In many cases rather than clarifying things, they simply obscure actual work processes in a cloud of abstractions that make little sense to the people whose work is supposedly being modelled. Worse, these abstractions are then utilised as the basis for building the information system, with the result that the inadequacy of these descriptions becomes clear to all in the failure of the resulting system.
An alternative approach pioneered by different groups in Scandinavia, and sometimes referred to under the label "Cooperative Design" is to work with users in the whole design process, accepting that needs analysis documents will inevitably be incomplete, and that even with the best of intentions, users find it difficult to articulate how they work, especially if asked to use some form of modelling notation with which to describe or interpret it. Alternative ways of allowing users to map their work processes and the contradictions they currently experience are required. Such methods as Future Workshops, role playing exercises, games can assist this process. (See Chapters in Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991 for examples). Such an approach presents a radical critique to much current systems development methodologies, yet due to the concern over acknowledged problems in traditional methods, there has been increased interest in these alternative ideas in recent years. However, it would be a good idea to review more carefully the successes and failures of these experiments, in order to see what aspects of these experiences can be usefully taken up in settings quite different to those of the original studies (see Grudin, 1991a). Paradoxically, some of this work is now itself being taken out of context and being promulgated by some as a panacea for almost any systems development problems one might encounter. Nevertheless, the growth of interest in the Participatory Design conferences of recent years (see Schuler & Namioka, 1993) attests to the concerns on the part of the design community for more effective ways of developing requirements and designing information systems.
So we can discern a number of shifts in the field of HCI over the years, brought about more by attention to the concerns of people "on the ground" than to any developments in the conceptual aramentarium deployed. Before any further discussion on the implications of such findings, I would like to outline a second case from the newly emerging interdisciplinary field of CSCW, closely related to HCI, and once again note the pattern of a variety of perspectives on the field being evident, and similar uncertainty about its basic concepts. However, it too is an example of an interdisciplinary area attracting a very heterogeneous mixture of interest groups that somehow manages to evolve and develop despite such shortcomings.
2.0 Second Case: Cooperative Work and its Computer Support
The birth of the term Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (now commonly abbreviated to CSCW) can be definitively traced to the computer scientists Irene Greif and Paul Cashman back in 1984, when they coined this term as a suitable theme for a small invited workshop focusing on the development of computer systems that would support people in their work activities. At that time, they did not actually have any specific view on what exactly was meant by the term "cooperative work". Since that time, much effort has been spent in attempting to define the bounds of the research area (Bannon & Schmidt, 1989, Hughes, Randall & Shapiro, 1991, Grudin, 1991b, Bannon, 1993). The area has attracted a growing community of researchers and practitioners and pundits, coming from a motley collection of disciplines including computing, software engineering, cognitive and social psychology, work sociology, anthropology, organisational theory, to name but a few. My purpose here is to once again show how the area is characterised by a variety of perspectives and note the amount of dissension and debate around a key concept underlying the field, namely "cooperative work".
2.1 Perspectives on CSCW
Despite interest in the new field there is still no universally accepted definition of CSCW. Indeed, whether CSCW can be viewed as a new field of research in its own right has been questioned by some. As a way into some of the confusion and controversy, we can distinguish at least four distinct ways of viewing CSCW (Bannon, 1993). Readers should see how these different perspectives are related to those viewpoints noted for the HCI field earlier.
a) CSCW as an umbrella term
At the most simple level, it can be argued that CSCW is simply an umbrella term with little content other than the idea that it is concerned with people, computers, and cooperation in some form. The utility of such a seemingly vacuous definition is that it allows people from a variety of different disciplines, with partially overlapping concerns as to the current state of technology development and the understanding of use contexts, to come together and discuss issues of mutual interest. CSCW in this view is an "arena" where different groups vie for the attention of participants, rather than a coherent focused field. Howard (1988) describes two distinct though very varied communities within CSCW. He coined the term "strict constructionists" to describe those in the field focused on the development of computer systems to support group work, who tend to use themselves as objects of analysis in the provision of support tools. These people, mainly implementers, are interested in building tools - widgets, and they see the area of CSCW as a possible leverage point for creating novel applications. Most of these people equate the CSCW field with Groupware, as they focus on new software applications. Howard denoted those who make up the remainder of the CSCW field, the larger part, as "loose constructionists," a heterogeneous collection of people, some of whom are drawn to the area by their dissatisfaction with current uses of technology to support work processes, others because they see in this area a chance for communities who traditionally have not had a voice in the design of computer systems to have one. Rob Kling has articulated a somewhat different view of the CSCW community. He sees CSCW as a conjunction of "certain kinds of technologies, certain kinds of users (usually small self-directed professional teams), and a worldview that emphasises convivial work relations" (Kling, 1991). This issue, of whether or not CSCW implies anything about shared goals of group members, or convivial work relations, has been the subject of some dispute (Bannon & Schmidt, 1989).
b) CSCW as a paradigm shift
Hughes, Randall & Shapiro (1991) argue that we should conceive of CSCW as a paradigm shift in the way we think of designing computer support systems of all kinds, rather than as a distinct research field. This position has similarities to the views of Suchman (1989), who describes CSCW as "....the design of computer-based technologies with explicit concern for the socially organised practices of their intended users." Both these views deny any special prerogative to particular user groups, technologies, or forms of work in what constitutes CSCW. Rather the emphasis is on "the turn to the social", realising that much work on people-technology systems has systematically avoided issues of the social organisation of work and their implications for the design of appropriate support technology.
c) CSCW as software for groups
A quite different conception of what the field is about can be discerned among those who focus on the computer support of "groups" or teams as the hallmark of the field . This has given rise to the term "groupware" to distinguish the computer products marketed in this area (Johansen, 1988). While this view is most commonly found among information technology and business consultants, it can also be found among software developers and researchers. For example, Irene Greif, one of the originators of the term CSCW, defines it as "an identifiable research field focused on the role of the computer in group work" (Greif, 1988). As noted by Kling and Howard (above), many adherents of this view tend to focus on small teams or homogeneous groups with convivial work relations, and thus ignore settings in everyday organisational life where issues such as power and politics play a large role. The "group" focus has also been criticised, based on difficulties of enumerating properties of "groups" as found in the work place. The relevance of many group studies undertaken in lab situations to workplace situations have also come under criticism.
d) CSCW as technological support of cooperative work forms
Bannon & Schmidt (1989) define CSCW as "an endeavour to understand the nature and characteristics of cooperative work with the objective of designing adequate computer-based technologies". Here the emphasis is on understanding cooperative work as a distinctive form of work (Schmidt, 1992), and on supporting these cooperative work forms with appropriate technology. This broadens the scope of the field considerably beyond that of computer support for groups. In this framework, "cooperative work" does not imply any notion of shared goals or conviviality, but rather people engaged in work processes related as to content. Critics of this approach argue that the distinction between cooperative work and individual work is problematic in everyday work situations, and that this approach has too functionalist a perspective, neglecting subjective factors of participation and cooperation.
e) CSCW as Participative Design
As noted by Howard (above) the CSCW community contains within its ranks a number of people who are proponents or practitioners of participative, or participatory, design (see the review by Clement & Van den Besselaar, 1993). Their focus is on developing alternatives to traditional systems design, alternative ways of doing design, of involving users, etc.(see, e.g., Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991). It is the involvement of what has come to be called the Scandinavian school of systems developers in the CSCW community that has lead some people to equate the CSCW area with participative design (PD) practices. This is in my opinion, a clear mistake that can only add to confusion surrounding both fields. While certainly various forms of user involvement are important to the development of successful CSCW systems, use of such techniques or ideas does not automatically signify any focus on cooperative work as variously discussed above. Nor, in many cases, are PD researchers interested directly in computer support for the design practices they are proposing. Indeed, many successful participative design practices e.g., Future Workshops, Wall Charting, etc., are noticeable by the complete absence of computers in supporting the ongoing work of the group. At the same time, the interests of PD and CSCW can overlap. For example, the software development process itself can be seen as a form of cooperative work which is supported by computers, and thus is an interesting and quite legitimate domain for CSCW studies. However, equating CSCW and PD entails unnecessary restrictions for each field of endeavour, and serves to confuse their different research goals and agendas. Part of the confusion has been caused by the fact that a number of members of the CSCW community are also members of the PD community. This should not obscure the differences between the nature of the two fields.
Having described some of the different perspectives evident in the CSCW field, I now look briefly at the confusion surrounding a central concept within this field - "cooperative work", akin to the confusion found in the HCI field around the "interface".
2.2. Understanding Cooperative Work
Just as the interface was a defining feature of the HCI field, so the concept of cooperative work plays a central role in the CSCW field. Yet, once again, on deeper investigation, we find that there is no shared understanding of what is meant by "cooperative work" among the CSCW community. Analysing the meaning of cooperative work is necessary due to the wildly disparate uses of the term in the field at present.
a) All work is cooperative work
Ehn (1988b) and Bowers (1991) argue that all work is essentially cooperative, in that it depends upon others for its successful performance. Taking this stance would seem to imply that there is no additional clarification achieved by adding the term ‘cooperative’ to that of ‘work’.
b) Cooperative work is autonomous group work
Sørgaard (1987) has a very specific set of criteria for what would count as cooperative work, for instance, that it is non-hierarchical, non-specialist, relatively autonomous, etc. This is seriously problematic, as there are many forms of work that are cooperative in the sense of there being the need for some form of coordination to handle the division of labour, but it has no necessary relation to group work as commonly discussed.
c) Cooperative work implies shared goals and motives
From yet another perspective, e.g. that of Howard (1987), the term ‘cooperative work’ is inappropriate because of the ideology inherent in the term, a ‘too sweet’ label for the realities of everyday work situations. He prefers an allegedly more open term, ‘collective work’. Kling (1991) also refers to the possible connotations of the term "cooperative work".
d) Cooperative work is a distinct form of work
Yet another perspective relies on the traditional usage of the term in work sociology. " 'Cooperative work’, the term picked by Greif and Cashman to designate the application area to be addressed by the new field, happens to be a term with a long history in the social sciences. It was used as early as the first half of the 19th century by economists as the general and neutral designation of work involving multiple actors and was picked up and defined formally by Marx (1867) as "multiple individuals working together in a planned way in the same production process or in different but connected production processes." " (Bannon & Schmidt, 1989). In this perspective, the concept of cooperative work does not imply any particular degree of participation or self-determination on the part of the workers, nor a particularly democratic management style.
So once again we have an interdisciplinary area which by all accounts is growing in importance and numbers, yet which apparently is able to exist without having any shared set of concepts accepted by members of this interdisciplinary community. The parallels between the HCI and CSCW areas are striking, but what are the implications - concerning the viability and coherence of interdisciplinary fields of study?
3. Learning from our experience with interdisciplinary studies
In this paper I have discussed two interdisciplinary fields, namely HCI and CSCW. I have noted the wide variety of perspectives on the nature of the field held by sectors of these communities, and also the fundamental uncertainties about key concepts in each field. Despite such apparent chaos, both fields seem to have prospered and to be able to handle this extreme heterogeneity of disciplines, methods and orientations. That the nature of these fields has been, and continues to be, the subject of debate as we have shown here is not necessarily problematic. In any area of science, the definition of the field - its core concerns and its boundaries - is best viewed as "contested terrain", even more so as the field struggles to find a unique identity, so it can set itself apart from its progenitors. The simple fact that there is dispute could be viewed as being symptomatic of a healthy debate about the underlying issues of interactivity, interface design, computer support, the nature of work, the role of groups in organizations, etc., which should be clarified over time.
But perhaps such statements are painting too "rosy" a picture. A more jaundiced observer might respond that really, little in the sense of real interdisciplinarity has occurred in these fields, as different groups carry on using their traditional methods, and produce results that are interpreted within traditional disciplinary frameworks, with perhaps some lip-service to interdisciplinary aspects. Thus for example, psychologists within HCI perform experimental studies on limited corpora of material in the lab and then proffer implications of this work for the general workforce in a multitude of settings, or computer scientists in CSCW continue to analyse work activities utilising paper descriptions of job tasks and then build models that are interpreted as being pertinent to real world work activities. In both cases, it appears that the essence of the interdisciplinary field is being violated, as there is no attempt to take seriously the viewpoints of other groups either based on differing disciplinary bases or theoretical or practical concerns.
So we are back to the issue of what really has been achieved by these interdisciplinary fields? Is there a prospect of developing some form of interdisciplinary theory for particular research fields, to which all members of the community could subscribe to, or is such an idea just a chimera? If such an overarching conceptual framework is not possible, what are we left with? I have noted how the supposed new research fields of HCI and CSCW are characterised by a wide range of perspectives. Which of these perspectives is correct ? Perhaps this is the wrong question to ask, as perspectives can be more or less illuminating, in certain contexts, rather than being clearly right or wrong in any absolute sense. However, it is important to be aware of the different frames of reference that people apply to an area, in order to better interpret their position. Thus there are some implications of the different perspectives, in terms of an agenda for research and development, which should be noted. For example, for those who view either HCI or CSCW as simply an umbrella term, HCI and/or CSCW is simply a convenient rack or stall on which to hang a variety of topics, around which communities gather, and may be replaced rather easily by another name, or fad, so long as it brings along some of the communities that are currently gathered around the HCI/CSCW showcases. In other words, while the HCI/CSCW phenomena may have been useful in community building, they are a hollow shell. While this may be regarded as an overly cynical position, it might also be labelled extremely pragmatic, and is the view held by many outside observers of the HCI or CSCW field, who see little in the way of distinct conceptual frameworks, methodologies, or research agendas in either of these fields.
3.1 The Possibilities for Interdisciplinarity
While debate continues about the core issues in HCI and CSCW, few would disagree with the observation that their interdisciplinary nature is a key feature. This attempt to meld viewpoints from such diverse fields as anthropology, drama studies (Laurel, 1993) and software engineering has, not surprisingly, created some difficulties and confusions. What the product of such melding could or should look like, and indeed, whether the very idea of "melding" different frameworks makes sense, are open to question. Certainly, a variety of different disciplines can contribute to these areas, utilising different conceptual frameworks, methods, etc., but the sense in which this multidisciplinary research can be said to be truly interdisciplinary is open to question.
This brings up the question of what exactly people mean when they discuss interdisciplinary studies. One view holds that HCI is interdisciplinary simply because a variety of different disciplinary backgrounds may be applied to study aspects of human-computer interaction - psychology, linguistics, software engineering etc. This might be termed the weak view, as it supports the notion of HCI as simply an additive combination of relevant disciplines, without much relation or inter-penetration. According to this weak view, CSCW may be viewed as "HCI-plus", i.e., HCI with the addition of social science disciplines, such as social and organisational psychology, sociology, and anthropology. In my view, it is not clear that such a simple additive model can be defended. The domains of interest of the different disciplines cannot be so neatly delineated, and findings subsequently combined, as this model assumes (cf. Bannon & Hughes, 1993).
An opposing perspective, which we might term the strong view, argues that what is needed for truly interdisciplinary work is a radical attempt to develop either a completely new set of concepts and terminology for the new field, or to "wed" concepts from existing disciplinary fields together, in order to create a new interdisciplinary theoretical framework. This could be accomplished, for instance, by constructing common dictionaries of terms and concepts which the different disciplines are supposed to utilise, or making mappings across conceptual frameworks, thus attempting to ensure some "shared understanding" among researchers. The ambitions of creating genuinely new interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks for any domain have not, to my mind, been very successful to date. I have yet to see any exemplary projects that have both argued for this approach and - more importantly - produced interesting results, when viewed from any of the participating disciplines. Likewise, the attempts to create a shared perspective through simple legislation of core definitions of terms across fields seems to have limited utility.
Part of the problem here is that what is involved in assuming a particular theoretical stance towards a subject is often not sufficiently appreciated. At times, it appears that discussions of the need for interdisciplinarity revolves around the utility of a variety of different instruments or methods for gathering data, but it is important to note that a disciplinary perspective is not defined simply by the methods used. The recent interest in ethnographic field studies in CSCW is a case in point. While anyone can rather quickly become proficient at interviewing or taking notes, the essence of this approach lies in the perspective one adopts in framing the research, the way one chooses to interpret the findings, the authorities one invokes to support a particular interpretation, etc. - in sum, the whole conceptual framework within which one's approach to the world is framed. Note that the argument here is not that different disciplines are unable to contribute to a joint project, but that the aim of building some form of theoretical base to subsume a variety of conceptual frameworks from different disciplines implies a fundamental misunderstanding of different disciplinary perspectives. These different positions emerge out of different backgrounds, research traditions, perspectives, etc. which are not commensurable - certainly not in any simplistic fashion. For example, attempting to build some form of hybrid unified framework to encompass an empirical functionalist systems approach with an interpretative constructivist approach seems doomed to failure, as the issue is not simply over different meanings to terms, but relates to fundamentally different worldviews. Certainly, theories can be broadened to include factors or circumstances previously omitted --we can already see how CSCW concerns have prompted cognitive scientists to pay more attention to how artefacts change tasks (Norman, 1991) and to the distributed nature of cognition, across people and tasks (Hutchins, forthcoming) -- but such extensions do not thereby subsume other theoretical frameworks.
The main point I wish to make here is that interdisciplinarity should nor be conflated with interdisciplinary theory qua theory . The latter concept is, to my mind, fundamentally flawed and posits a Holy Grail that is inherently unattainable. But this does not at all imply that therefore interdisciplinary studies are impossible. Rather, it simply rejects one particular view of what could constitute the way forward in interdisciplinary studies. Part of my argument in this paper is that both HCI and CSCW have indeed developed over time without any single defining disciplinary perspective, due principally to a focus on practice rather than theory.
4. Conclusion
One of the hallmarks of exemplary HCI and CSCW work is how it attempts to bridge the gap between the human and social sciences and computer science issues. The argument is not that one should leave behind one's particular disciplinary concepts and methods, indeed, it is important that work is concretely anchored within a well-defined framework, but that if, for example, ethnographic work is to count as HCI or CSCW it must at least attempt to address software design issues, e.g. to the extent of focusing attention on crucial aspects of human interaction that need to be supported via any technology. Likewise, computer science work should be informed by what is known of how people actually work, and show how the technology in fact supports features of this work. This is the challenge facing people from a variety of different backgrounds who wish to be active in HCI or CSCW, as distinct from experimental psychology or computer science. Of course, such work cannot be accomplished overnight. A certain amount of mutual learning between people working on common projects who bring their different perspectives and skills to the table is required. This process of learning is currently underway. Simplified views of people, human work activity and the potential for automating it have been replaced by an understanding on the part of information systems developers of the need to explore the human and social world of work. Within CSCW, for example, one can see how this "turn to the social" has lead to at least the beginning of a process of mutual learning between computer and social scientists (Sommerville et al., 1992). In turn, certain social scientists, for example those involved in detailed ethnographic studies in a particular setting, are having to take seriously issues concerning the generalisability of their findings, and their implications for technology support, rather than simply presenting their interpretations of current work practices.
Finally I would like to return to the discussion of the Great Divide posited by Star in discussions at the Workshop underlying this book. Based on the experiences of the HCI and CSCW fields, I am not at all sure that there exists necessarily any such Great Divide. Rather there exist a number of differing interpretations of what the object of interest is, and how it should be studied. I would argue that part of the success of the CSCW field to date has been in the ability of a number of researchers and practitioners - from a variety of disciplines - to take seriously the question of how to construct the common object for their endeavours (cf. especially Kuutti, 1991). The success of this work can be seen in the nature of the discourse within the field, where arguments over which discipline "owns" a problem have given way to genuine attempts to bring particular disciplinary biases to bear on the common object of research. To the extent that this is successful, we do have a new interdisciplinary field emerging.
If one examines the fields of HCI and CSCW from this perspective, some differences can be discerned. Within HCI, as currently constituted, one witnesses a certain amount of fractionation into sub-groups due, in my opinion, to the lack of any set of common objects as a focus for their interdisciplinary efforts. Whether new objects can be found, i.e. constructed, within the arena of HCI to keep it as a thematic entity is currently an open question. On the other hand, I would argue that CSCW currently shows more hope in this regard, due to the ongoing and sustained attempts by members of the community to construct and articulate a set of common objects that would serve as foci for the field, as I noted earlier. This does not imply that all members of the community share exactly the same concepts, but that, while they may focus on different issues, there is a core set of common objects - such as the division of labour and mechanisms of interaction in work settings - which serve as boundary objects for both research and practice.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Workshop participants for useful discussions, to Bill Turner for his comments and patience, and to the EU Esprit COMIC Project 6225 for support. My understanding of issues in CSCW owes much to discussions with my colleagues John Hughes and Kjeld Schmidt.
References
Andersen, P.B. (1990) A Semiotic Approach to Construction and Assessment of Computer Systems. In H.-E. Nissen, H.K. Klein & R. Hirschheim (eds.) Proceedings of ISRA-90 Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Backhurst, D. (1988) Activity, Consciousness, and Communication. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, April 1988, 10, 2, 31-39.
Bannon, L. (1993) CSCW: An Initial Exploration. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, August, 1993.
Bannon, L. J. & Bødker, S. (1991) Beyond the Interface: Encountering Artifacts in Use. In J. Carroll (Ed.) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human- Computer Interface. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bannon, L. & J. Hughes (1993) The Context of CSCW. In K. Schmidt (ed.) Report of COST14 "CoTech" Working Group 4 (1991-1992), Feb 1993, pp. 9-36.
Bannon, L. & K. Schmidt, (1989). CSCW: Four Characters in Search of a Context. In Proc. First European Conference on CSCW, Gatwick, UK, September. (Reprinted in J. Bowers & S. Benford, Editors, (1991). Studies in Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Theory, Practice and Design. (Amsterdam: North-Holland). Pages 3-16.
Bjerknes, G., P. Ehn, & M. Kyng (Eds.) (1987), Computers and democracy – a Scandinavian challenge. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Bowers, J. (1991), ‘The Janus Faces of Design: Some Critical Questions for CSCW’, in Bowers, J. & Benford, S. (Eds.) (1991) Studies in Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Theory, Practice and Design. Elsevier North-Holland: Amsterdam.
Button, G. (Ed) (1993) Technology in Working Order. London: Routledge.
Bødker, S. (1989). A Human Activity Approach to User Interfaces. Human Computer Interaction, 4, 3, 171-195.
Callon, M. (1991) Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge.
Clement, A. & P. Van den Besselaar, (1993). Participatory Design Projects: A Retrospective Look. To appear in Communications of the ACM, Volume 36, No. 6, June 1993.
Coulter, J. (1983) Rethinking Cognitive Theory. London: Macmillan.
Ehn, P. (1988a). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Falköping, Sweden: Arbetslivscentrum / Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Ehn, P. (1988b): Remarks in panel discussion on "CSCW: What does it mean?" (L. Bannon, moderator). CSCW ‘88. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, September 26-28, 1988, Portland, Oregon, ACM, New York, NY, 1988.
Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1987). The Collective Resource Approach to Systems Design. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy – a Scandinavian challenge. (pp. 17-58). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Goransson , B. & Lindt, M. & Pettersson, E. & Sandblad, B. & Schwalbe, P. (1987) The Interface is often not the problem. In J. Carroll & B. Tanner (eds.) Human Factors in Computer Systems IV. North-Holland, New York.
Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.) (1991) Design at Work.: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greif, I., (Ed.) (1988). Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
Grudin, J. (1990) interface. In CSCW'90, Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, 1990.
Grudin, J. (1991a) Interactive Systems: Bridging the gaps between developers and users. IEEE Computer, April, 1991, 59-69.
Grudin, J., (1991b). CSCW: The convergence of two development contexts. In Proceedings ACM SIGCHI - CHI'91, New Orleans, USA, April-May.
Howard, Robert (1987): "Systems Design and Social Responsibility: The Political Implications of ‘Computer-Supported Cooperative Work’: A Commentary", Office: Technology and People, vol. 3, no. 2, 1987.
Howard, Robert (1988): Remarks in panel discussion on "CSCW: What does it mean?", CSCW ‘88. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, September 26-28, 1988, Portland, Oregon, ACM, New York, NY, 1988.
Hughes, J., D. Randall, & D. Shapiro, (1991). CSCW: Discipline or Paradigm? In L. Bannon, M. Robinson, & K. Schmidt, (Eds.) Proceedings of the Second European Conference on CSCW - ECSCW'91. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pages 309-323.
Hutchins, E. (forthcoming) Cognition in the Wild. Book manuscript.
Johansen, Robert, (1988). Groupware. Computer Support for Business Teams, The Free Press, New York and London.
Kling, Rob. 1991. Cooperation, Coordination and Control in Computer-Supported Work. Communications of the ACM, 34 (12): 83-88.
Kuutti, K. (1991) The concept of activity as a basic unit for CSCW research. In L. Bannon, M. Robinson, & K. Schmidt (Eds.) Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on CSCW (ECSCW-91). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Kuutti, K. & Bannon, L. (1991) Some Confusions at the Interface: Re-conceptualizing the "interface" problem. In Nurminen, M. & Weir, G. (Eds.) Human Jobs & Computer Interfaces. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 3-19. (Selected papers from Proceedings of IFIP Human Jobs and Computer Interfaces Conference, Tampere, Finland, June 1991.)
Kuutti, K. & Bannon, L (1993) Searching for unity among diversity: Exploring the interface concept. In Proceedings ACM/IFIP Conference InterCHI'93 (Human Factors in Information Systems), Amsterdam, April, 1993.
Laurel, B. (Ed.) (1990) The Art of Human-Computer Interaction Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Laurel, B. (1993) Computers as Theatre. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Marx, Karl. 1867. Das Kapital. Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie . (Hamburg, 1867). In Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), vol. II/5. Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1983.
Newman, W.M. & Sproull, R.F. (1979) Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Norman, D. (1980). Twelve Issues for Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science, 4 (pp. 1-32).
Norman, D.A. (1990) Interview, pg. 6 . In B. Laurel (ed.) The Art of Human-Computer Interaction Design. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Norman, D. (1991) Cognitive Artifacts. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.) (1991) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Papert, S. (1990) Interview Comment. In BYTE, Sept. 1990, pg. 230.
Robinson, H. (1990) Towards a Sociology of Human-Computer Interaction. In P. Luff & N. Gilbert & D. Frohlich (eds.) Computers and Conversation. Academic Press, London, pp. 39-50.
Schmidt, K. (1992), ‘Cooperative Work: A Conceptual Framework’, in Rasmussen, J., Brehmer, B. and Leplat, J. (eds.), Distributed Decision Making: Cognitive Models for Cooperative Work. Chichester, Wiley, pp. 75-109.
Schmidt, K.& Bannon, L. (1992) Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting articulation work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1,1.
Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (Eds.) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 79-97.
Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P., Rodden, T. Bentley, R. (1992) Sociologists can be surprisingly useful in interactive system design. In Proc. HCI ' 92, University of York, UK., September 1992.
Star, Susan Leigh and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19: 387-420.
Suchman, L. (1989) Notes on Computer Support for Cooperative Work. Working Paper WP-12, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Jyvaskyla, SF-40100, Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Sørgaard, Pål. 1987. A cooperative work perspective on use and development of computer artifacts. In 10th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS), Vaskivesi, Finland, August 10-12,1987.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.