Design methods as discourse on practice

In this paper, we present a view of design methods as discourse on practice. We consider how the deployment of a particular set of design methods enables and constrains not only practical action but also discursive action within the design practice. A case study of agile software development methods illustrates the ways that methods establish conditions for who can speak in the design process and how. We indentify three main kinds of discourse work performed in the invoking of design methods. These are the establishing of ontologies, the authorizing of voices, and the legitimizing of practices. We then discuss implications of this view on methods for CSCW research on the relationship between methods and practice as well as implications for participation in the design process.

[1]  Robert J. Anderson,et al.  Representations and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design , 1994, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[2]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  The computer reaches out: the historical continuity of interface design , 1989, CHI '90.

[3]  D. Boje.  The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. , 1991 .

[4]  Andraž Cej,et al.  Agile software development with Scrum , 2010 .

[5]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI , 2006 .

[6]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Five reasons for scenario-based design , 2000, Interact. Comput..

[7]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Office procedure as practical action: models of work and system design , 1983, TOIS.

[8]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Requirements gathering: the human factor , 1995, CACM.

[9]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[10]  Mike Cohn,et al.  User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development , 2004 .

[11]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods , 2000 .

[12]  Alistair Cockburn,et al.  Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams , 2004 .

[13]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Technomethodology: paradoxes and possibilities , 1996, CHI.

[14]  Daniel Gooch,et al.  Communications of the ACM , 2011, XRDS.

[15]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

[16]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Participatory design , 1993, CACM.

[17]  L. Suchman.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd edition). , 2007 .

[18]  Martin R. Gibbs,et al.  Mediating intimacy: designing technologies to support strong-tie relationships , 2005, CHI.

[19]  Olav W. Bertelsen,et al.  Design Artefacts: Towards a design-oriented epistemology , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Reflective design , 2005, Critical Computing.

[21]  M. Foucault.  The Birth of Biopolitics , 2008 .

[22]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[23]  Matthew Fuller,et al.  Software Studies: a lexicon , 2008 .

[24]  George Mangalaraj,et al.  Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies , 2005, CACM.

[25]  J. Law.  A Sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination , 1991 .

[26]  S. Woolgar.  Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials , 1990 .

[27]  Bob Anderson,et al.  The user as a scenic feature of the design space , 1994 .