A note and an afterthought on the paper by Philip Kraft and Jorgen Bansler “The Collective Resource Approach: The Scandinavian Experience” presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Cambridge, MA, 6&7 Nov. 1992 Introduction I received the aforementioned paper from Jorgen Bansler in late October 1992, too late to comment on it before it was presented at the PD conference. However, I read the paper in January 1993 and it turned out that the paper was marked by several flaws, e.g. of the kind where a claim is made with reference to a paper that says the opposite of what is claimed (for an example see the section on misrepresentation below). The sum of these flaws is a misrepresentation of the whole Collective Resource Approach (CRA). And when all misrepresentations, errors, etc. are stripped away it turns out that the paper presents no valid evidence in support of the claims made in the abstract or the conclusion. COLLECTIVE RESOURCES MEETS PURITANISM
[1]
Jørgen Lindskov Knudsen,et al.
Tools and Techniques for Experimental System Development
,
1992
.
[2]
David Hakken.
Work‐Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts
,
1989
.
[3]
Susanne Bødker,et al.
The AT-project: practical research in cooperative design
,
1993
.
[4]
Morten Kyng,et al.
Designing for cooperation: cooperating in design
,
1991,
CACM.
[5]
Kaj Grønbæk,et al.
CSCW challenges: cooperative design in engineering projects
,
1993,
CACM.
[6]
M. Kyng,et al.
Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge
,
1987
.