Concluding Remarks: New Pathways

  • Volker Wulf
  • Kjeld Schmidt
  • David Randall
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)


It is perhaps stating the blindingly obvious when we say that technologically, organisationally, and socially, we are experiencing rapid change. Whether, however, our analytic approaches have kept up is an open question. In these concluding remarks, we examine the changing face of social, organisational, and work practice as a dynamic sociotechnical phenomenon and present an argument for a modest and productive approach to generalisation which will allow us to bridge the gap between, on the one hand, case studies which can be narrowly focused and short-term and, on the other, decisions about the appropriate level of generality which might allow us to transfer insights and be a basis for technological design. We use the word ‘modest’ advisedly here for some part of what we have to say will be avowedly polemic. Many of the problems we discuss are not new. Issues around participation, the politics of design, the role of the reflexive researcher, and so on have been discussed ad nauseam. Our main contention, however, is that we have yet to provide a systematic alternative to more conventional approaches to the investigation and design relationship. We see this to be the focus of an emerging discourse on socially embedded technologies. In the following, we will elaborate on such a research agenda, developing it out of a critical evaluation of the state of the art in the CSCW discourse.


Hedge Fund Electronic Patient Record Participatory Design Design Science Design Science Research 
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.


  1. Bannon, L., Schmidt, K., & Wagner, I. (2011). Lest we forget. In Proceedings of ECSCW’12. Seattle: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bonsiepe, G. (2007). The uneasy relationship between design and design research. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now. Basel: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  3. Brannigan, A. (2004). The rise and fall of social psychology: The use and misuse of the experimental method. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). The basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is : The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 12–32.Google Scholar
  9. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1973). Towards a social ecology: Contextual appreciation of the future in the present. London: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  12. Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (1991). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Hevner, A. R., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design research in information systems: Theory and practice. New York: Springer.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quartertly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  16. Hodges, B., & Geyer, A. (2006). A nonconformist account of the Asch experiments: Values, pragmatics and moral dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kaptilinen, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and reflections. San Rafael: Morgan and Claypool.Google Scholar
  19. Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L. (2014). The turn to practice in HCI: Towards a research agenda. In CHI’14 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Paris: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  20. LaLancette, M.-F., & Standing, L. (1990). Asch fails again. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 18(1), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lieberman, H., Paterno, F., & Wulf, V. (2006). End user development. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mumford, E. (1981). Participative systems design: Structure and method. System Objectives, Solutions, 1(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
  23. Mumford, E. (1995). Effective systems design and requirements analysis: The ETHICS approach. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Mumford, E., & Henshall, D. (1983). Designing participatively: A participative approach to computer systems design: A case study of the introduction of a new computer system. Manchester: Manchester Business School.Google Scholar
  25. Okasha, S. (2003). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. (1980). The Asch experiment: A child of its time. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 405–406.Google Scholar
  27. Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. (1981). Independence or conformity in the Asch experiment as a reflection of cultural and situational factors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pipek, V. (2005). From tailoring to appropriation support: Negotiating groupware usage. PhD thesis, Faculty of Science, Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
  29. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 1.MATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Randall, D., Harper, R., & Rouncefield, M. (2007). Fieldwork for design. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rohde, M., Stevens, G., Brödner, P., & Wulf, V. (2009). Towards a paradigmatic shift in is: Designing for social practice. In DESRIST 09. Malvern: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schmidt, K. (2014). The concept of practice. Proceedings of COOP, Nice, France.Google Scholar
  34. Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (2013). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Stevens, G. (2010). Understanding and designing appropriation infrastructures: Artifacts as boundary objects in the continuous software development. PhD thesis, University of Siegen.Google Scholar
  36. Stevens, G., Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2011). Appropriation infrastructure: Mediating appropriation and production work. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 22(2), 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Whyte, W. F. (1948). Human relations in the restaurant industry. Oxford: Mcgraw- Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Wulf, V. (1999). Evolving cooperation when introducing groupware: A self-organization perspective. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 6(2), 55–74.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Wulf, V. (2009). Theorien sozialer Praktiken zur Fundierung der Wirtschaftsinformatik. In J. Becker, H. Krcmar, & B. Niehaves (Eds.), Wissenschaftstheorie und Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 211–224). Heidelberg: Springer/Physika.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wulf, V., Rohde, M., Pipek, V., & Stevens, G. (2011). Engaging with practices: Design case studies as a research framework in CSCW. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2011) (pp. 505–512). New York: ACM Press.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Media and InformationUniversity of SiegenSiegenGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer FITSt. AugustinGermany
  3. 3.Department of OrganizationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations