Putting ethnography to work: the case for a cognitive ethnography of design
Putting ethnography to work: the case for a cognitive ethnography of design
复制标题
DOI：
10.1006/ijhc.2000.0372
复制
发表时间：
2000-07-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Ormerod, TC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ball, LJ;Ormerod, TC
民族志和认知心理学的方法经常是相互对立的。虽然这种观点可能适合定义每项活动的纯粹或原型类别，但当研究人员有目标地研究复杂的工作领域以促进技术变革时，这种区分的价值和必要性就被打破了。在本文中，我们概述了这些方法的和解，我们将其称为认知民族志。以这种方式限定民族志的价值在于系统地强调民族志作为径向类别与用于研究工作实践的合法方法之间的差异，这些合法方法通常被称为民族志，但实际上与原型民族志研究在重要方面有所不同。认知民族志的特征，如观察特异性、可验证性和目的性，挑战了纯粹民族志方法的许多原则，但它们对于为技术变革提供信息的研究至关重要。我们参考一个开发支持创新设计环境中设计重用的工具的项目来说明我们的论点。 (C) 2000 年学术出版社。
The methods of ethnography and cognitive psychology are frequently set in opposition to each other. Whilst such a view may be appropriate in defining pure, or prototypical, classes of each activity, the value and necessity of such a distinction is broken down when researchers are goal-directed to study complex work domains in order to foster technological change. In this paper, we outline a rapprochement of these methods, which we term cognitive ethnography. The value of qualifying ethnography in this way is to emphasize systematically the differences between ethnography as a radial category and the kinds of legitimate method used to study work practices which are often referred to as ethnographic, but which in practice differ in important ways from prototypical ethnographic studies. Features of cognitive ethnography such as observational specificity, verifiability and purposivenes challenge many of the tenets of a pure ethnographic method, yet they are essential for studies that are undertaken to inform technological change. We illustrate our arguments with reference to a project to develop a tool for supporting design re-use in innovative design environments. (C) 2000 Academic Press.