Search

This article discusses the relationship between sociological theory and method, ethnomethodology and design. The aim of Wes Sharrock and Dave Randall, the authors of this article, is to deal with the relevance, or otherwise, of ethnomethodology to information system (IS) design. The authors' reflections were prompted by discussions at a symposium on "interpretive methods" for IS design held at Brunei University, and at which it became apparent that there was some confusion about ethnomethodology as it relates to design. The current interest in ethnomethodology in IS communities, somewhat confusingly for the design's practitioners, comes about because there has been a recent, though arguably belated, interest in the so-called "qualitative" methods in IS work, thus aping a move previously made in other design communities such as Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Nevertheless, and it is too often forgotten, so-called methods like ethnography are in important respects not methods at all. The authors mean this in the sense that they provide no instructions for "how to do it." Most significantly, the injunction to "go out and look" tells people nothing about what to look at, and in what kind of detail. Moreover, the "method" gives no purchase on the significance or otherwise of the chosen subject in respect of design issues. Regardless of this, it seems that a naturalistic study of people's activities may offer a way into some kinds of IS problem.

Social theories are usually developed to enable a clearer understanding of a situation or problem. The `Social Model' in various forms is currently the dominant model for researching disability, addressing disability from within a socio-political framework that draws substantially on a `social constructionist' perspective. This article critiques some of the core sociological assumptions of the Social Model, questioning what `work' this kind of theory does in informing a set of practical concerns around the design of assistive technologies, suggesting an alternative framework of analysis, supported by extensive ethnomethodologically informed ethnographic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper develops a deeper understanding of professional software design by examining the emergent logic of a software design exercise. Decision-making is evident as a ‘product’ of activity, including coordinated attention to primarily two artefacts, the brief and the whiteboard. Thus, we pay attention to the ‘situatedness’ of decision-making, which is not one person’s accomplishment, but is interactively carried out through treating what is known to the participants such as requirements written in the brief as ‘documentary’ of what is to be understood. The paper examines how each pair resolved the requirements uncertainties, by treating different ‘users’ differently. Our examination reveals how different approaches to the design exercise were actually organised to shed new light on software design practices. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]