Patterns of Interaction:
a Pattern Language for CSCW
| PoInter home |
|
Ethnographically informed design |
|
Patterns elsewhere |
|
Patterns of cooperative interaction |
|
Publications |
Ethnography in systems design
Ethnographic studies of people using technology in cooperative settings are well established in the CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) literature. Studies have been performed in a variety of settings, including air traffic control [10], stock exchange dealing rooms [7], doctors surgeries [8], high street banks [2], print shops [4], the home [12], etc. The motivation for many of these studies was the interest of the ethnographers themselves in the work which they were studying, and the ways in which technology is used in collaborative ways in order to get the work done. All the studies can, however, be seen to be addressing issues and problems in the design of cooperative systems.Ethnography, or to be more accurate, ethnomethodological ethnography, is an approach to the study of work which is a highly distinctive branch of sociology [3; 13]. Ethnomethodology's approach to understanding human activity is different to other human sciences because it eschews theorising about it. Rather, ethnomethodological accounts of human activity are based upon detailed descriptions of the activity that are the result of spending prolonged periods as a participant observer in the setting where the activity takes place. In taking this approach, ethnography avoids the problems associated with the artificiality of laboratory-based study, and produces accounts that are worded in terms that are readily understood by the participants being studied. In particular, what ethnography offers the design process over other techniques are detailed accounts of how work is accomplished in practice, rather than how it may be specified, or how workers might report their actions in an interview.
The rise in popularity of ethnography as an approach to RE is relatively recent [1; 5; 6; 11], although its use as a technique to inform the design of technology is slightly longer established [16]. Its popularity is largely due to the concerns within the field of CSCW for the social nature of work, and the need to understand it in order to develop systems which will successfully support it. The benefit that ethnographic studies have brought to the field of CSCW has largely taken the form of improved understanding of the way in which work is socially organized, and how, for example, seemingly mundane tasks can play a vital role in the successful accomplishment of the work under study.
A number of criticisms have been made of ethnography, however, concerning its use as a method of requirements elicitation. These have largely been of a practical nature, related to the manner in which ethnography is conducted for more traditional purposes. In essence, the criticisms aimed at ethnography as a method for RE take the form of:
- ethnography is typically a lengthy process, taking several months, or even longer in some cases. RE simply cannot afford to make use of a technique that takes so long to produce results;
- communicating the results of ethnographic studies to the design process is not straight-forward;
- language and cultural barriers exist between sociologists and technologists;
- it is difficult to draw abstract lessons in the form of design principles from a technique that is concerned with the concrete detail of a particular situation;
- the success of an ethnographic study is dependent upon the skills of the individual fieldworker;
|
|
