Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 13–17 September 1993, Milan, Italy ECSCW ’93

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, wiith that framework as background, consider the attempt, through THE COORDINATOR, to implement a technological system for intentionaccounting within organizations. Finally, I suggest the implications of the analysis presented in the paper for the politics of CSCW systems design. No idea is more provocative in controversies about technology and society than the notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is the claim that machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions to efficiency and productivity ... but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority. Winner 1986, p. 19. By teaching people an ontology of linguistic action, grounded in simple, universal distinctions such as those of requesting and promising, we fmd that they become more aware of these distinctions in their everyday work and life situations. They can simplify their dealings with others, reduce time and effort spent in conversations that do not result in action, and generally manage actions in a less panicked, confused atmosphere. Flores et al 1988, p. 158.