| Increasing sensitivity towards everyday work practice in system design | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prev | Chapter 1. Introduction | Next |
Writing this thesis has proceeded through three phases. Publications I-III were written while I was engaged in empirical work whereas publications IV and V have been written some years after finishing the longitudinal study and maturing of thought. This introduction has been written last, after yet another phase of deliberation. The texts reflect this maturing and my growing as a researcher. For instance, by comparing papers I-III with publications IV and V one can see how integral the actual practices of work and design have become after their initial invisibility.
On the other hand, the period between the publications also reveals how long it has taken for me to learn to write so that the actual practice and the actual people are also present in the text. As I have pondered upon what kind of writing would be suitable for me as a researcher (cf. Vehviläinen 1993) and for bridging work practice and system design, I have worked towards a style of writing that would remain devoted to the detail and actual instances of events but also tells the story of the unfolding activities (see publications IV and V).
Furthermore, by becoming acquainted with the problematics discussed in ethnography in relation to the crises of representation and legitimation (see e.g. Clifford & Marcus 1986, Atkinson & Hammersley 1994, Denzin & Lincoln 1994) I have become aware of representation in a new sense, such as the representation of the ‘other’ as well as the political and ethical responsibilities arising from there. Gradually the considerations have made their way into my practices of representation, both literary and video. In texts, authenticity is aimed at by providing excerpts of actual instances of work and still images of video recordings. In doing so I have also attempted to give a voice to the ‘others’, although after the actual instances of videotaped activities I have been the principal analyst and author.
This introduction attempts to make visible and describe the practices of ‘others’, i.e. radiology practitioners and the participants of collaborative design sessions. Thus the research question number 1 about practitioners achieving the endogenous fluency and ongoing change of everyday work practice is explored throughout the introduction (chapters 2-5), as well as in publications I, IV and V. Publication II describes the video-assisted ways that I used in studying the technologically mediated work practice of clinical radiology.
This introduction also aspires to make visible my own research practice. It starts by explicating my starting points in work practice and system design as well as the research setting in clinical radiology work in chapter 2. The applied research approach is introduced and proportioned with three other research approaches that have also worked on bridging work practice and system design. In relation to research question number 2.1, I reflect on my experiences and location as a researcher as part of the exploration on the relations between researchers, practitioners and design(ers) in bringing together work practice and participatory design. These deliberations began already in publication I. To address the research question number 2.2 I describe the work of constructing a tool for work practice oriented participatory design in chapters 3 and 4. Publication III introduced the first ideas for the practical design tool.
The end of chapter 4 describes through the analyses of actual design activities how practitioners find their ways in co-constructing the relations of work practice and system design, thus addressing research question number 2.3. The actual design activities are elaborated in the two most recent publications: publication IV describes the interplay of participants’ views in the co-construction of shared understandings of radiology work practice and teleradiology design issues, and publication V identifies the dimensions of interaction through which this co-construction takes place.
Chapter 5 discusses the ways through which sensitivity towards everyday work practice in system design can be increased. It assembles together the explorations of and outcomes for research questions 1-2 and invites into a dialogue the other approaches to bridging work practice and system design introduced in section 2.4. Finally, chapter 6 brings together and discusses the responses for research questions 3-5 on the ontological and epistemological issues relating to the integration of work practice and system design that have been dealt with throughout the thesis.
The original publications form a mosaic of my interdisciplinary interests. They have been written about the same phase of research but to different audiences and research communities. Thus they offer different perspectives into the experimental teleradiology project but are also partially overlapping.
Publication I describes my early reflections on researcher location through gendered fieldwork relationships and encounters, the multiplicity of fieldworker roles in participant observation and involvement of the action research type, partial situated views of work practice and power-related discourses, and attachment and ethical accountability of the fieldworkers. It also makes visible the supportive work that goes into assuring the everyday accomplishment of the teleradiology service which otherwise might have remained unattended. An example of dispersed image articulation work illustrates the importance of analysing and articulating also supportive work as a legitimate starting point for design considerations.
Publication II describes the various uses of video in studying teleradiology work and system redesign: the recording of work activities during fieldwork, the stimulated recall interviews carried out during the fieldwork, the more detailed interaction analyses of video recordings, the preparation of video collages to be worked on in the workshops and the video-based workshops themselves. It discusses the potentials of video as a medium and tool from the point of view of joining together work practice analysis and system design.
Publication III was directed to an audience of interactive system design. It introduces the principal ideas of collaborative video-based WPASED (Work Practice Analysis, System Evaluation and Design) workshops. Bridging analysis of work practice and system design in the workshops was aimed through careful consideration of multiparty participation with special regard to the practitioners’ situated points of view, the activities of analysis, evaluation and design reflecting the perspectives of practice, research and design and the shared object of collaborative activities, namely the representations of work practice in form of video collage.
Publication IV examines the collaborative activities of radiology practitioners, designers and fieldworker/researchers in a work practice oriented multiparty design intervention. Through an example of image comparison in radiologists" image interpretation the participants can be seen to co-construct shared understandings of radiology work practice and teleradiology design issues. The emphasis is on ontology and epistemology as the focus is especially on how the participants’ views and understandings are at interplay in the collaborative activities of analysing existing work practices, evaluating the experimental system and envisioning a future teleradiology system and work practice. The possibilities opening up from the integration of work practice and collaborative design are discussed in terms of gravitation to actual work practices and practitioners" participation in the workshops.
Publication V continues analysing the same workshop. The elements of interaction that created the possibilities for the co-construction of work practice issues as relevant design considerations are identified and discussed as opportunities for analysis and intervention. The elements are then joined into three dimensions of interplay that systematically integrate systemic analysis and appreciative intervention. These three dimensions, namely the analytic distance, the horizon of work practice transformations and the situated generalisation, reformulate new conceptualisations of what the integration of work practice and participatory system design is all about. It is suggested that these dimensions call into question some of the taken-for-granted assumptions and commonly forwarded intractable disciplinary dichotomies and contribute more generally to bridging work practice and participatory system design.