Diagnostic Reasoning in the Use of Travel Management System
Tóm tắt
We explore the appropriation of a self-management administrative system from the perspective of diagnostic reasoning. The case study, based on documents, ethnography and videotapes, concerns the appropriation of a travel management system in a major university in Finland. To explore this process from a user-centric view, we focus on the diagnostic work required in the appropriation of the new system, analyzing both the generic diagnostic reasoning of how the users navigate in the system and their individual and collaborative problem-solving strategies. This approach reveals the interaction between the users and the technology, which incorporates inbuilt models of users, administrative work and work processes. Our analysis concerns interactive instances which resulted from misdiagnosis of the functions of the system. For example, the orchestration and labeling of items in the application pose diagnostic challenges to end-users and may eventually be resolved in collaboration with administrative personnel. The individual and collaborative diagnostic reasoning sheds light on the hidden organizational embeddedness of self-management solutions, providing suggestions for developing the design and deployment of administrative self-management systems. The appropriated self-management system should finally be based on the end-user’s diagnostic reasoning so that the employees can base their actions on their taken-for-granted competence and the skills gained during the appropriation of the system.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Akrich, M. (1992): The De-scription of Technical Objects. In W. Bijker and J. Law (eds): Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT, pp. 205–224.
Arminen, I. (2001): A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of User–Device Interaction. Poster at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse. Santa Barbara, CA.
Arminen, I. (2005): Institutional Interaction—Studies of Talk at Work. Ashgate: Aldershot.
Arminen, I. (2008): Scientific and ‘radical’ ethnomethodology: From incompatible paradigms to ethnomethodological sociology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences.
Baker, C., M. Emmison and A. Firth (2001): Discovering order in opening sequences: calls to a software helpline. In A. McHoul and M. Rapley (eds): How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods. London: Continuum , pp. 41–56.
Baker, C., & M. Emmison, Alan Firth (eds): (2005): Calling for Help: Language and social interaction in telephone helplines. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
Button, G., & P. Dourish (1996): Technomethodology: Paradoxes and Possibilities’, Proceedings of CHI ’96, Human Factors in Computing Systems. Canada: Vancouver, pp. 19–26
Cornford, J. and N. Pollock (2003): Putting the University Online—Information, Technology and Organizational Change. Open University Press: Buckingham.
Dourish, P. (2001): Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT: Cambridge.
Dourish, P. and G. Button (1998): On “technomethodology”: foundational relationships between ethnomethodology and system design. Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 13, pp. 395–432. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1304_2.
Forsythe, D. (2001): Studying Those Who Study Us—An anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence. Stanford University Press: Stanford.
Garcia, A.C., M.E. Dawes, M.L. Kohne, F.M. Miller and S.F. Groschwitz (2006): Workplace studies and technological change. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, vol. 40, pp. 393–437. doi:10.1002/aris.1440400117.
Garfinkel, H. (1967): Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Goodwin, C. (2000): Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 32, pp. 1489–1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X.
Goodwin, C. (2007): Participation, stance and affect. Discourse & Society, vol. 18(1), pp. 53–73. doi:10.1177/0957926507069457.
Heath, C. and P. Luff (2000): Technology in Action. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Heritage, J. (1984): Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity: Cambridge.
Hohmann, L. (1997): Journey of the Software Professional: A Sociology of Software Development. Prentice Hall PTR: New Jersey.
Koskinen, I. (2007): Is it fun to go to Sydney? Common-sense knowledge of social structures and WAP. PsychNology Journal, vol. 5, pp. 7–31. http://www.psychnology.org/372.php.
Koskinen, I., P. Repo and K. Hyvönen (2006): WAP and accountability: shortcomings of the mobile internet as an interactional problem. Journal of Usability Studies, vol. 2(1), pp. 22–38.
Levinson, S.C. (1992): Activity types and language. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds): Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100.
Martin, D. and M. Rouncefield (2003): Making the organization come alive: talking through and about the technology in remote banking. Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 18(1&2), pp. 111–148. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_5.
Martin, D., Rooksby, J., & M. Rouncefield (2007). Users as contextual features of software product development and testing. Group, 301–310.
McLaughlin, J., P. Rosen, D. Skinner and A. Webster (1999): Valuing Technology: Organisations, Culture, and Change. Routledge: London & New York.
Ochs, E., Patrick Gonzales and Sally Jacoby (1996): “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: grammar and graphic representation in the interpretative activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds): Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 328–369.
Opetusministeriö (2006): Opetusministeriön hallinnonalan talous-ja henkilöstöhallinnon palvelukeskushanke. Esiselvitys. [Ministry of Education: Service Center Project on Financial and Personnel Administration under the Sector of Ministry of Education. Preliminary Report.] Helsinki.
Oudshoorn, N., & T.J. Pinch (eds) (2003): How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology. New Baskerville: The MIT Press.
Pollock, N. (2005): When Is a work-around? Conflict and negotiation in computer systems development. Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 30(4), pp. 496–514. doi:10.1177/0162243905276501.
Sacks, H. (1984): On doing “being ordinary”. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds): Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 413–429.
Sacks, H. (1992): Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson with introductions by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sellen, A.J. and R.H.R. Harper (2002): The Myth of the Paperless Office. MIT: Cambrigde.
Silverman, D. (1998): Harvey Sacks. Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford University Press: New York.
Suchman, L. (1987): Plans and Situated Actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Suchman, L. (1994): Do categories have politics?: the language/action perspective reconsidered. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 2, pp. 177–190. doi:10.1007/BF00749015.
Suchman, L. (2007): Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Twidale, M.B. (2005): Over the shoulder learning: supporting brief informal learning. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 14, pp. 505–547.
Whalen, J. and E. Vinkhuyzen (2000): Expert systems in (inter)action: diagnosing document machine problems over the telephone. In P. Luff, J. Hindmarsh and C. Heath (eds): Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing Systems Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–140.
Winograd, T. (1994): Categories, disciplines, and social coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 2(3), pp. 191–197. doi:10.1007/BF00749016.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958): Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Woolgar, S. (1991): Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials. In J. Law (ed): A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. Sociological Review Monograph 38. London: Routledge, pp. 58–99.