Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing methods for workplace studies: a theoretical and empirical analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A comparative theoretical and empirical analysis of three methods for workplace studies is being conducted in this article. The aim of the study was to explore what level of theoretical depth and methodological structure is appropriate when conducting methods for workplace studies to inform design of complex socio-technical systems. As workplace studies in human–computer interaction (HCI) are a research field that has expanded in an extensive way in the past years, currently there are a wide range of theoretical approaches and methods to select from. The variety of approaches and methods makes it problematic to do relevant methodological choices both in research and system design. While there have been several studies that assess the different approaches to workplace studies, there seem to be a lack of studies that explore the theoretical and methodological differences between more structured methods within the research field. This article serves as a starting point to explore the many methods for workplace studies in HCI and contributes to the field with increased knowledge regarding the theoretical and methodological differences in workplace studies. When using the two criteria descriptive power and application power to assess Contextual Design, Determining Information Flow Breakdown, and Capturing Semi-Automated Decision-Making, lessons are learned about in which ways the methods are acceptable and useful when the purpose is to inform system design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Beyer and Holtzblatt (1998) utilize the term customer when referring to the end-user of a system. In this paper, the term user will be utilized throughout the text. The term user is widely accepted in HCI and clarifies the differences between end-users of a system and the actors that order and pay for system evaluation and design.

References

  • Benyon D, Turner P, Turner S (2005) Designing interactive systems: people, activities, contexts, technologies. Pearson Education Ltd, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1998) Contextual design—designing customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Blandford A, Furniss D (2006) DCoT: a methodology for applying distributed cognition to the design of team working systems. In: Gilroy SW, Harrison MD (eds) Interactive systems, design, specification, and verification, 12th international workshop, DSVIS 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3941, Springer, New York, pp 26–38

  • Borycki EM, Kushniruck AW (2010) Towards an integrative cognitive-socio-technical approach in health informatics: analyzing technology-induced error involving health information systems to improve patient safety. Open Med Inf J 4:181–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decortis F, Noirfalise S, Saudelli B (2000) AT, cognitive ergonomics and distributed cognition: three views of a transport company. Int J Hum Comput St, 53, 5–33. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0378

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers J, Wilson S, Fone J (2007) A method for determining information flow breakdown in clinical systems. Int J Med Inform 76:113–121. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.015

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson CA (2002) AT and distributed cognition: or what does CSCW need to do with theories? Comput Support Coop Work 11:243–267. doi:10.1023/A:1015298005381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath C, Knoblauch H, Luff P (2000) Technology and social interaction: the emergence of workplace studies. Brit J Sociol 51(2):299–320. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00299.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans Comput Human Interact 7(2):174–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzblatt K (2008) Contextual design. In: Sears A, Jacko JA (eds) The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, New York, NY, pp 941–963

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzblatt K, Burns-Wendell J, Wood S (2005) Rapid contextual design—a how to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995a) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995b) How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cogn Sci 19(3):265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin JY, Torres-Urquidy MH, Schleyer T, Monaco V (2008) A preliminary model of work during initial examination and treatment planning appointments. Brit Dent J 206(E1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 13407 (1999) Human-centered design processes for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin V, Nardi BA, MacAulay C (1999) The activity checklist: a tool for representing the “space” of context. Interactions magazine, July–August, 27–39

  • Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C (2000) Introduction. In: Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C (eds) Workplace studies-recovering work practice and informing systems design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nardi B (1996) Context and consciousness: AT and human-computer interaction. MIT Press, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardi B (1997) The use of ethnographic methods in design and evaluation. In: Helander H, Landauer TK, Prabhu P (eds) Handbook of human–computer interaction, 2nd edn. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam, pp 361–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson M (2010) Capturing semi-automated decision making—the methodology of CASADEMA. Doctoral dissertation. Örebro University, University of Skövde

  • Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry M (2003) Distributed cognition. In: Carroll JM (ed) HCI models, theories and frameworks. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA, pp 193–225

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Plowman L, Rogers Y, Ramage M (1995) What are workplace studies for? ECSCW’95 Proceedings of the fourth conference on European conference on computer-supported cooperative work. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp 309–324

  • Rogers Y (2004) New theoretical approaches for human–computer interaction. Annu Rev Inform Sci 38:87–143. doi:10.1002/aris.1440380103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers Y (2012) HCI theory: classic, modern and contemporary. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael

  • Schleyer T, Spallek H (2001) Dental informatics. A cornerstone of dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 132(5):605–13. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt K (2000) The critical role of workplace studies in CSCW. In: Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C (eds) Workplace studies—recovering work practice and informing systems design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 141–150

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Song M, Spallek H, Polk D, Schleyer T, Wali T (2010) How information systems should support the information needs of general dentists in clinical settings: suggestions from a qualitative study. BMC Med Inform Dec Mak 10(7):1–9. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-10-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake RE (2000) Case studies. In: Denzin NK, Guba YL (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 435–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of Human–Machine communication. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L (2011) Work practice and technology: a retrospective. In: Szymanski MH, Whalen J (eds) Making work visible: ethnographically grounded case studies of work practice. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 21–33

  • Szymanski MH, Whalen J (eds) (2011) Making work visible: ethnographically grounded case studies of work practice. Cambridge University Press, New York

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the personnel at the dental clinics that participated in the study. Their cooperation and willingness to share their workspace and knowledge with us have been very much appreciated. We also want to offer our special thanks to Västra Götalandsregionen (VGR) for funding and support. Furthermore, we would like to express our great appreciation to Ph.D. Tarja Susi for her critical eye and helpful comments during the research process. We would also like to thank Christine Olsson for editing our photos, to help us ensure the anonymity of our informants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Informatics Research Centre (IRC), University of Skövde, PO Box 408, 54128, Skövde, Sweden

    Charlott Sellberg & Jessica Lindblom

Authors
  1. Charlott Sellberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica Lindblom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlott Sellberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sellberg, C., Lindblom, J. Comparing methods for workplace studies: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Cogn Tech Work 16, 467–486 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0273-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0273-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation