The Pendulum of Standardization

  • Torbjørg Meum
  • Eric Monteiro
  • Gunnar Ellingsen
Conference paper


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.


Care Plan Nursing Practice Local Practice Nursing Community Computer Support Cooperative Work 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. Bjorvell, C., R. Wredling, et al. (2002): “Long-term increase in quality of nursing documentation: effects of a comprehensive intervention.” Scand J Caring Sci 16(1)Mar: 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowker, G. and S. Star (2000): Sorting things out: classification and its consequences. Cambrigde, The MIT Press. Cambrigde, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Bulechek, G., H. Batcher, et al. (2008): Nursing Intervention Classification. Mosby Elsevier, St.Lous.Google Scholar
  5. Carlile, P. R. (2004): “Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries.” Organization Science 15(5) 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellingsen, G., E. Monteiro, et al. (2007): “Standardisation of work: co-constructed practice.” The Information Society 23(5) 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gordon, M. (1998): “Nursing nomenclature and classification system development.” Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 30.Google Scholar
  8. Halpin, H., V. Robu, et al. (2007): The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. WWW2007, Canada, ACM.Google Scholar
  9. Hanseth, O. and N. Lundberg (2001): “Designing Work Oriented Infrastructures.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 10(3–4) 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hepsø, V., E. Monteiro, et al. (2009): “Ecologies of e-Infrastructures.” Journal of the AIS 10(5) 430–446.Google Scholar
  11. Hinrichs, J., V. Pipek, et al. (2005): Context grabbing: assigning metadata in large document collections. ECSCW 2005, Springer.Google Scholar
  12. International, N. (2007): Nursing Diagnosis: Definition & Classification. NANDA International, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  13. Klein, H. and M. D. Myers (1999): “A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information system.” MIS Quarterly 23(1) 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meum, T., G. Wangensteen, et al. (2010): “Standardization--the iron cage of nurses’ work?” Stud Health Technol Inform 157, 85–90.Google Scholar
  15. Moen, A., S. B. Henry, et al. (1999): “Representing nursing judgements in the electronic health record.” J Adv Nurs 30(4)Oct: 990–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NNO (2009): NNO Strategy 2009 -2013. eHealth - Everybody’s responsiblity and in everyone’s interest. Norwegian Nurses Organisation.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Orlikowski, W. and D. Hoffman. (1997). “An Imporvisational Model for Change Managment: The Case of Groupware Technologies.” 1997, from
  19. Orlikowski, W. J. (1994): “Categories: concept, content, and context.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 3(1) 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peters, I. (2009): Folksonomies: Indexing and Retrieval in the Web 2.0. KG Saur Verlag Gmbh & Co, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidt, K. and L. Bannon (1992): “Taking CSCW seriously.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 1(1)7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmidt, S. and R. Werle (1998): Coordinating technology: studies in the international standardization of telecommunications. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Simone, C. and M. Sarini (2001): Adaptability of Classification schemes in Cooperation: what does it mean? ECSCW01, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  24. Timmermans, S. and M. Berg (1997): "Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols." Social studies of science 27(2) 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torbjørg Meum
    • 1
  • Eric Monteiro
    • 2
  • Gunnar Ellingsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Telemedicine and E-HealthUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations