Studies of Work: Achieving Hybrid Disciplines in IT Design and Management Studies
Studies of Work: Achieving Hybrid Disciplines in IT Design and Management Studies
复制标题
工作研究：实现 IT 设计和管理研究的混合学科
DOI：
10.1007/s10746-005-4192-4
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
D. Seymour
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Rooke;D. Seymour
我们探讨民族方法学（EM），民族志和行业的管理者和设计师的需求之间的关系，考虑民族方法学和工业标准的充分性和通过“观众”的概念来阐明他们的关系。我们检查了一系列的研究，在这方面，以他们可能的候选人资格的混合研究，并确定三种类型的应用EM研究的工作：市场研究，设计和业务改进。在第一个领域的应用，我们称之为“人类学”，因为它包括研究和报告异国情调的人（客户）的方式。这是计算机支持的协作工作（CSCW）研究中最常见的应用。第二个CSCW应用程序，“technomethodology”，涉及到EM概念引入到设计过程。另一个被称为“举起一面镜子”的应用是向一个环境的成员报告他们自己的活动。我们认为，技术方法论和举起一面镜子都提供了创建混合学科的可能性。我们认为，改进和设计涉及引进的价值判断，威胁到EM冷漠的做法，认为行动研究可以作为一个保证独特的充分性（UA）通过测试研究人员的理解，在行动中的设置分析。此外，普遍获得标准所要求的报告标准有助于提高拟议解决办法的效力。
We explore the relationship between ethnomethodology (EM), ethnography and the needs of managers and designers in industry, considering both ethnomethodological and industrial criteria of adequacy and explicating their relationship through the concept of “audience.” We examine a range of studies in this light, with a view to their possible candidacy as hybrid studies and identify three types of application of EM studies of work: market research, design, and business improvement. Application in the first of these fields we dub “anthropological,” in that it consists in studying and reporting back on the ways of exotic people (customers). This is the application most commonly found in studies of computer supported co-operative work (CSCW). A second CSCW application, “technomethodology,” involves the introduction of EM concepts into the design process. A further application, dubbed “holding-up-a-mirror,” involves reporting back to members of a setting upon their own activities. We argue that technomethodology and holding-up-a-mirror both offer the possibility of creating hybrid disciplines. We consider the objection that improvement and design involve the introduction of value judgements that threaten the practice of EM indifference, arguing that action research can serve as a guarantee of unique adequacy (UA) by testing the researcher’s understanding as analysis in action in the setting. Furthermore, the standard of reporting required by the UA criterion contributes to the effectiveness of proposed solutions.