Difference between revisions of "Harper1995"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Richard Harper; |Title=Why people do and don't wear active badges: A case study |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography; CSCW; Active Badges; Evaluat...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Richard Harper; | + | |Author(s)=Richard Harper; |
| − | |Title=Why people do and don't wear active badges: | + | |Title=Why people do and don't wear active badges: a case study |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography; CSCW; Active Badges; Evaluation; Sociology; Work Practice; Community; Religion; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography; CSCW; Active Badges; Evaluation; Sociology; Work Practice; Community; Religion; |
|Key=Harper1995 | |Key=Harper1995 | ||
|Year=1995 | |Year=1995 | ||
|Journal=Computer Supported Cooperative Work | |Journal=Computer Supported Cooperative Work | ||
|Volume=4 | |Volume=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=4 |
| − | |URL= | + | |Pages=297–318 |
| + | |URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01846697 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1007/BF01846697 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This paper reports findings from an analysis of attitudes toward and use of active badges and associated applications in a large corporate research laboratory. The evidence will show that there were two distinct sets of views about active badges, leading one group within the institution to be strongly opposed to their introduction and use, and another very supportive. Analysis of these views will show that they were the manifestation of two different morally cohered communities. The demonstrable existence of these communities was in part achieved through and displayed by the avowal of these distinct sets of attitudes and views. Further, analysis of the particular communities will suggest that some of these views and attitudes had the character of being sacred or semi-sacred; in this sense they were beliefs. On the basis of these materials, the paper will conclude with discussion of how beliefs can form the bedrock of any and all communities, and how it is necessary to respect those beliefs if one wishes to introduce technologies to support group activities. Failure to do so can lead to the rejection of systems on grounds well removed from the purported purpose of those systems. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:07, 24 October 2019
| Harper1995 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Harper1995 |
| Author(s) | Richard Harper |
| Title | Why people do and don't wear active badges: a case study |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnography, CSCW, Active Badges, Evaluation, Sociology, Work Practice, Community, Religion |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1995 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Computer Supported Cooperative Work |
| Volume | 4 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 297–318 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/BF01846697 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper reports findings from an analysis of attitudes toward and use of active badges and associated applications in a large corporate research laboratory. The evidence will show that there were two distinct sets of views about active badges, leading one group within the institution to be strongly opposed to their introduction and use, and another very supportive. Analysis of these views will show that they were the manifestation of two different morally cohered communities. The demonstrable existence of these communities was in part achieved through and displayed by the avowal of these distinct sets of attitudes and views. Further, analysis of the particular communities will suggest that some of these views and attitudes had the character of being sacred or semi-sacred; in this sense they were beliefs. On the basis of these materials, the paper will conclude with discussion of how beliefs can form the bedrock of any and all communities, and how it is necessary to respect those beliefs if one wishes to introduce technologies to support group activities. Failure to do so can lead to the rejection of systems on grounds well removed from the purported purpose of those systems.
Notes
