In the beginning the main research question for this thesis was posed as “How to increase the sensitivity of system design towards everyday work practice and especially towards its fluency?” This chapter summarises the explorations of and outcomes for research questions 1-2 before going into the discussion and integration of responses for research questions 3-5.
The exploration of research question number 1 “How do the practitioners achieve the endogenous fluency and ongoing change of everyday work practice?” through the empirical work carried out in clinical radiology has provided the starting point as well as the necessary possibility of recurrent return to actual practice during the research process. Description and discussion of radiology work practice as accomplished by the practitioners is present throughout the thesis, particularly through examples on the radiologists’ image interpretation work in section 2.2 and on both the film-mediated collaboration of neurological CT examinations and the emergent teleradiology way of working in section 2.6, as well as through illustrations of everyday work carried out by different radiology occupations in section 3.2 on video-assisted fieldwork methods for studying everyday radiology practice. Publication II further describes and discusses the video-assisted ways of studying the technologically mediated radiology work. The practice of image interpretation is elaborated in publications IV and V which analyse the discourse of participants in workshops on this particular topic. Section 5.1, in turn, summarises and discusses the transition taking place in radiology work with regard to the transformations of technological mediation of everyday work and the changes in technology development, as well as ways of procuring information systems for radiology work that vary in complexity.
Research question number 2 “What are the relations between researchers, work practice participants and designers in work practice sensitive participatory design?” has been addressed in three ways. First, by reflecting on the researcher’s experiences and location throughout ethnographic work in addressing research question number 2.1 “How to make use of the experiences and location of the researcher in exploring the relations between practitioners, designers and researchers?” This began in publication I as reflections on gendered experiences in fieldwork. Sections 3.1, 3.3, 4.1 and 4.2 describe my learning and doing of fieldwork, my changing of fieldworker roles, my construction of fieldworker understanding and my seeking for location as an interdisciplinary fieldworker. Section 5.4 summarises the construction of my researcher understanding through the changing of interdisciplinary fieldworker roles and discusses the role of a participant interventionist in comparison to other researcher roles of integration and stances of interdisciplinarity.
Secondly, in exploring the research question number 2.2 “How can the construction of the relations between practitioners, designers and researchers be supported?” the reflections on researcher experience and location were used in developing a practical tool for work practice oriented participatory design. This is described in sections 4.2 and 4.3. Publication III as well as section 4.3 outline the constituents of the WPASED (Work Practice Analysis, System Evaluation and Design) workshop that are further discussed in section 5.2 based on the actual experiences of organising workshops.
Thirdly, the explorations for research question number 2 were continued through analyses of the actual instances of design sessions in which the tool was used in addressing research question number 2.3 “How are the relations between researchers, practitioners and designers co-constructed in actual practice?” These analyses brought into light the voices and views of practitioners described in section 4.4.1 and discussed in publication IV, as well as their endogenous ways of finding the relations of work practice and system design as described in section 4.4.2 and discussed in publication V. The actual discourse and activities of participants in one of the workshops is illustrated and elaborated in detail in publications IV and V.
Finally, for answering the research question 2, three dimensions were exposed through bringing together the reflections of the researcher’s ethnographic analytic understanding of radiology work practice and teleradiology design issues (research question 2.1) and the findings of analysing participation in co-constructing the relevance of work practice for system design (research question 2.3) into a dialogue with the other approaches that have addressed the integration of ethnographic study of work and system design in section 5.3 and publication V. The dimensions of analytic distance, horizon of work practice transformations and situated generalisation are put forward as general interactions of work practice sensitive participatory design.
The following sections summarise and integrate my exploration and explications on the other research questions, numbers 3 through 5 respectively.
This thesis began with a description of the various aspects central in the study of work as everyday practice illustrated by an instance of radiology work in section 2.2. Throughout the chapters these issues have been revisited and reworked. The following answers the research question 3 “How should the notion of work practice be reformulated to enhance sensitivity towards actual everyday work practice in system design?” by weaving together these threads into a reformulation that is both appreciative of the everyday work practice and useful for system design.
The starting point in the concept of ‘appreciating everyday work practice in design’ is the concrete work as it naturally occurs in a particular place in a specific time. It comprises the mundane aspects of complex socially organised activities in everyday settings, both the smoothly organised routine ways of working and accustomed procedures that have evolved during years as well as the problematic situations as they rise and become handled by practitioners as part and parcel of the everyday practice. It recognises the intimate relation between work and technology through a special interest in the material mediation. The use of the material environment is investigated to find out how the documents, artifacts and technologies become integrated into work by practitioners and how they gain their significance in the unfolding attainment of work.
Knowledge and meaning are seen as socially constructed, hence work is examined with regard to the judgement and reasoning required in its accomplishment, for instance, without distinguishing between expert knowledge and skills needed in routine tasks. In order to grasp the fine-tuned intertwined character of socially organised and materially mediated activities, work is scrutinised on an adequately detailed level as a temporally organised gradually disclosing real-time activity.
The concept of ‘appreciating work practice in design’ recognises that practice always contains an element of transition as practitioners are engaged in endogenous processes, both formal and informal, of changing and developing their work. The current work practice is analysed to discern the inherent transformations as well as the variation brought about by different technologies in the existing ways of working (see especially sections 2.6.2, 4.2.3 and 5.1.1). Distinguishing transformations, such as contexts of work with different technological mediation, allows for making visible the endogenous change and development in the everyday work practice (section 5.3.2).
The reformulated notion of ‘appreciating work practice in design’ challenges the future orientation and the agenda of technology possibilities prevalent in system design (see e.g. Mogensen & Robinson 1995, Kristoffersen & Ljungberg 1996). It has been said that due to the change factor in all design, the analyst cannot take current practice for granted, as indisputable ways and means. I agree that current practice certainly is problematic from the point of view of design, but I also argue that design, however, may greatly benefit from starting with the study of existing work practice. The reformulation of ‘appreciating work practice in design’ opens possibilities and alleviates increasing the sensitivity of system design towards actual work practice as it is both appreciative of the everyday fluency of work practice and also explicitly recognises for the needs of system design the endogenous technologically mediated change.