The Pendulum of Standardization
Cooperation and collaboration are generally an inherent part of everyday practice, and particularly among nurses. However, the technologies that support these practices are still inadequate. In this study, we present and discuss the use of classifications in nursing practice, and highlight the collective re-construction of classifications that emerge over time. Specifically, we study how the negotiation between global classifications and local practice takes place with long-term use, and depict this dynamic interaction as a pendulum movement. Furthermore, we characterize this standardization as a collective re-construction grounded in everyday practice. This paper contributes to the body of research on this topic by doing the following: (i) characterizing the process of standardization as a pendulum movement; (ii) drawing out theoretical perspectives for standardization as a collective, emerging accomplishment; (iii) stating the practical implications of our perspective. Finally, we compare the local adjustment (local classifications) discussed in this study with social classifications (social tagging), and suggest how social classification may lead to increased flexibility in the use of classifications.
KeywordsCare Plan Nursing Practice Local Practice Nursing Community Computer Support Cooperative Work
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Benner, P. (2004): “Designing formal classification systems to better articulate knowledge, skills, and meanings in nursing practice.” Am J Crit Care 13(5)Sep: 426–430.Google Scholar
- Bowker, G. and S. Star (2000): Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambrigde, The MIT Press. Cambrigde, MA.Google Scholar
- Bulechek, G., H. Batcher, et al. (2008): Nursing Intervention Classification. Mosby Elsevier, St.Lous.Google Scholar
- Gordon, M. (1998): “Nursing nomenclature and classification system development.” Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 30.Google Scholar
- Halpin, H., V. Robu, et al. (2007): The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. WWW2007, Canada, ACM.Google Scholar
- Hepsø, V., E. Monteiro, et al. (2009): “Ecologies of e-Infrastructures.” Journal of the AIS 10(5) 430–446.Google Scholar
- Hinrichs, J., V. Pipek, et al. (2005): Context grabbing: assigning metadata in large document collections. ECSCW 2005, Springer.Google Scholar
- International, N. (2007): Nursing Diagnosis: Definition & Classification. NANDA International, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
- Meum, T., G. Wangensteen, et al. (2010): “Standardization--the iron cage of nurses’ work?” Stud Health Technol Inform 157, 85–90.Google Scholar
- NNO (2009): NNO Strategy 2009 -2013. eHealth - Everybody’s responsiblity and in everyone’s interest. Norwegian Nurses Organisation.Google Scholar
- Norwegian Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2008): Samspill 2.0. Nasjonal strategi for elektronisk samhandling i helse- og omsorgssektoren 2008 - 2013. Nasjonal streategi.Google Scholar
- Orlikowski, W. and D. Hoffman. (1997). “An Imporvisational Model for Change Managment: The Case of Groupware Technologies.” 1997, from http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CCSWP191/CCSWP191.html.
- Schmidt, S. and R. Werle (1998): Coordinating technology: studies in the international standardization of telecommunications. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Simone, C. and M. Sarini (2001): Adaptability of Classification schemes in Cooperation: what does it mean? ECSCW01, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
- Ure, J., R. Procter, et al. (2009): “The Development of Data Infrastructures for eHealth: A Socio-Technical Perspective.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(5) 415–429.Google Scholar