[s2If !is_user_logged_in()]
Sign in or create a free account to access this content and over 400 articles—the leading collection of peer-reviewed work on ethnographic practice.
This discussion is clearly about understandings of configuration. One of the engineers (Engineer 1) refuses to consider the tightening of bolts and screws on pumps as configuration. He argues that the manual practice is not a configuration problem – to him, configuration is a complex mathematical challenge that can be solved by advanced computer algorithms. After some discussion, other engineers (Engineer 3 and 4), who also worked on the similar material, offer a different view on the manual practice. They consider that such manual work is part of configuration work, as it aims to optimize the system.
In this case, the video and the storyboards helped us provoke engineers to discuss fundamental and important issues which otherwise would not come to the surface. We had learned from field studies, that technicians configure a refrigeration system not only through computer settings, but also by sensing the plant and doing physical manipulations. Configuration involves a process of making sense of how the system is put together and exploring the various configuration possibilities (checking the history of the previous configurations) (Sitorus & Buur, 2007).
The most commonly proposed solution to configuration problems is to hide the complexity from the users and introduce computer technology that can automatically work without too much user intervention. However, we have learned from our studies that it is important for the technicians to be able to deal with the complexity, rather than to lose their grip on for what they are responsible. They rely on the physical setup of the plant to help them orientate and develop a better strategy to control and configure the various parameters.
Episode 4 – Design Mock-up as Provocation II. The fourth episode was another experiment of reifying ethnographic concepts in a simple design mock-up. It provoked the engineers to reconsider their preference for screen and button solutions, as the mock-up moved the issue of hidden parameters out into the open. The design concept ‘The Compass’ allowed technicians to manipulate relevant parameters by means of configuring the shape and physical structure of the interface, rather than hiding the parameters in screen menu hierarchies.
FIGURE 4 Technicians discuss how they see configuration parameters triggered by an imaginative design mock-up.
We brought the Compass to the technicians on site at a refrigeration plant (Figure 4). Provoked by the large size of the Compass and its simplicity, the technicians asked whether the Compass should be used as a dedicated interface to control specific things in the system. They explain that often configuration involves copying one setting from site to site, with small tuning and tweaking. The challenge for them is when they have to tweak settings from scratch.
When discussing the tangible mock-up with the engineers at a later workshop, we asked them to briefly imagine and describe a model of a system that would support the Compass. At first it was difficult for them to do, since the system is much more complex than what the interface visualizes. The physicality of the mock-up provokes them to question their software solutions and to think about the relationship between the technology and the technicians’ bodily practice. Through discussions, the engineers have come to understand that the system should be structured carefully using the technician’s point-of-view.
DISCUSSION
By comparing the two cases we would like to draw attention to issues that seem crucial to make Anderson’s (1994) ‘questioning of the taken-for-granted assumptions’ come about – at least in engineering organizations like the ones with which we engage. But first, did ethnography make a valid contribution, and if so, what was the nature of the design provocation?
In both cases we struggled with rather fundamental understandings of how technology relates to people’s work practice. In the first, the theme was automation and how technology shapes or supports work. In the second, it was adaptation of technology, and whether configuration is a precondition for work to begin or a core attribute of work. The ways technicians experience their work was in both cases so alien to the engineers that they reacted strongly against it and refused to be persuaded by a mere statement of the technicians’ perspective, as this would have severe consequences for the way they regard company products and the role the company plays in the world.
Whereas in Episode 1 the design team was taken by surprise that their knowledge from practice observations could actually have such a strongly provocative effect in the organization, Episode 2, 3 and 4 represent various ways of dealing with this situation through the shaping of ethnographic material. The conflict experienced in Episode 1, however, wasn’t all negative. In spite of a human (at least a very Scandinavian) urge to avoid direct confrontation, this clash of opinions had a profound effect on teamwork. The new team seemed to rally around the fact that it shared obviously controversial knowledge, and this provided a strong identity and a driver for the ensuing process.
Ethnography as shared material – The material used to stage discussions in Episode 3 was edited video stories and storyboards. In combination with challenging questions it brought about discussions of deeper issues. Should we think of such material as empirical or analytical in Dourish’s distinction (Dourish, 2006)? To encourage engagement and collaborative sense-making the material did not spell out a particular reading, but it certainly, through its selection and composition, represented an analytic focus and a stance beyond that of naked data. There seems to be a delicate balance here, between theory/analysis and involvement, on the one hand to ensure sufficient depth and precision, and on the other to make a difference with the people involved. Elsewhere we have argued that video can play a special role when regarded as ‘design material’ in a collaborative process, rather than as objective data (Buur et. al., 2002, Ylirisku & Buur, 2007). While video collages, portraits and stories convey an analytical perspective, they maintain an ambiguity that allows the design team to play with alternative readings. Involving others in analyzing ethnographic material helps them relate their competences to concrete user practices.
Ethnography embodied in design – The design mock-ups in Episode 2 and 4 help focus discussion on particular issues. Rather than prototypes, we should probably regard them as ‘provotypes’ (Mogensen, 1994) in the sense that they do provoke certain themes to surface in the dialogue (Does work happen inside or outside? Is configuration a precondition or is it core work?). This challenges us to think of ethnography not only as text, but also as physical form. The product in a sense embodies the ethnography. There is still much to be learned about reification of understandings; in particular because this is certainly not part of standard anthropological training.
Ethnography for framing user engagement – The design mock-ups helped stage dialogs in both Episode 2 and 4, but in different ways. In the Water Vision project the mock-up served as a tool to engage R&D engineers and process operators in direct dialogue. In a sense, the design team escaped the unattractive role of interpreter, representer, or go-between. In Episode 4, the engineers were not directly involved with the technicians, but the design mock-up served first to engage technicians in dialog with the design team, then – along with video of the technicians’ reactions – to trigger dialog between engineers and the design team. In this way the ethnographic material helps ‘frame partnerships between those on different sides of the production/consumption relationship, as in Dourish’s reading of Suchman (Dourish, 2006). The material mediates the exchanges of understanding and perspectives of various practitioners. Wynn argues that by creating openings within the boundaries that form such practices, one diminishes the distance between these practices (Wynn, 1991). These openings take place when designers are willing to be more sensitive towards the boundaries (Wynn, 1991). Ethnographic material can help these practitioners expose, exchange and reframe their understandings.
CONCLUSIONS
There are a number of conclusions that we would like to draw from our study. Firstly, to engage the potential of ethnography to provoke organisations to rethink their understandings of problems and solutions, the textual form may not be adequate. Neither are insight bullet points, as they submit to the logics of rational argumentation that hardly provokes questioning and engagement. Instead, we find it paramount to develop ways of engaging the organisation in sense-making through the use of visual and physical ethnographic material.
Secondly, the ethnographic theory building, though crucial to design, cannot progress independently of the prevailing conceptions of (work) practices ‘out there’ in the organisations – and these may not become clear to us until we confront the organisation with our material. Better sooner than later.
Thirdly, to move collaboration beyond requirements talk among the design team, organisation and participants, needs well-crafted ethnographic material to frame the encounters to focus on fundamental issues and perceptions.
Acknowledgments – We would like to thank Svenja Weinmann for locating and transcribing the video sequences, and conversation analysis colleagues Jacob Stensig, Maria Egbert and Johannes Wagner for their perspectives on the episodes. Also, Wendy Gunn was supportive in discussing the experiences. The USEC project is funded by the Danish Research Council of Technical Sciences.
Jacob Buur is professor of user-centred design with the Mads Clausen Institute for Product Innovation at the University of Southern Denmark. Prior to the present position he established and managed the Danfoss User-Centred Design Group for 10 years.
Larisa Sitorus is a PhD researcher with the Mads Clausen Institute for Product Innovation at the University of Southern Denmark. Her PhD topic is ‘Tangible Configuration based on Installer Ethnography’
Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings 2007, pp. 146–157. © American Anthropological Association, some rights reserved.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. J.
1994 Representations and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 151-182.
Bentley, R., Hughes, J., Randall, A., Rodden, T., Sawyer, P., Shapiro, D., Sommerville, I.
1992 Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 01-04, 1992). CSCW ’92. ACM Press, New York, NY, 123-129.
Buur, J., Binder, T., Brandt, E.
2000 Taking Video beyond ‘Hard Data’ in User centered Design. In Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference, New York, NY, 21-29.
Bødker, S., Buur, J.
2002 The design collaboratorium: A place for usability design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 9, No.2, 152-169.