Difference between revisions of "Suchman1994"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Lucy Suchman; |Title=Do Categories Have Politics?: The language~action perspective reconsidered |Tag(s)=EMCA; Coordination technologies;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Lucy Suchman; | |Author(s)=Lucy Suchman; | ||
| − | |Title=Do | + | |Title=Do categories have politics?: the language/action perspective reconsidered |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Coordination technologies; organizational communications; speech act theory; systems design | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Coordination technologies; organizational communications; speech act theory; systems design | ||
|Key=Suchman1994 | |Key=Suchman1994 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=2 | |Volume=2 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=177–190 |
| − | |Abstract= | + | |URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00749015 |
| + | |DOI=10.1007/BF00749015 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Drawing on writings within the CSCW community and on recent social theory, this paper proposes that the adoption of speech act theory as a foundation for system design carries with it an agenda of discipline and control over organization members' actions. I begin with a brief review of the language/action perspective introduced by Winograd, Flores and their colleagues, focusing in particular on the categorization of speakers' intent. I then turn to some observations on the politics of categorization and, with that framework as back-ground, consider the attempt, through THE COORDINATOR, to implement a technological system for intention-accounting within organizations. Finally, I suggest the implications of the analysis presented in the paper for the politics of CSCW systems design. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:06, 24 October 2019
| Suchman1994 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Suchman1994 |
| Author(s) | Lucy Suchman |
| Title | Do categories have politics?: the language/action perspective reconsidered |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Coordination technologies, organizational communications, speech act theory, systems design |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1994 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Computer Supported Cooperative Work |
| Volume | 2 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 177–190 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/BF00749015 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Drawing on writings within the CSCW community and on recent social theory, this paper proposes that the adoption of speech act theory as a foundation for system design carries with it an agenda of discipline and control over organization members' actions. I begin with a brief review of the language/action perspective introduced by Winograd, Flores and their colleagues, focusing in particular on the categorization of speakers' intent. I then turn to some observations on the politics of categorization and, with that framework as back-ground, consider the attempt, through THE COORDINATOR, to implement a technological system for intention-accounting within organizations. Finally, I suggest the implications of the analysis presented in the paper for the politics of CSCW systems design.
Notes
