Difference between revisions of "Sharrock-Button1997a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Wes Sharrock; Graham Button; |Title=On the Relevance of Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action for CSCW |Tag(s)=EMCA; Habermas; Grou...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Wes Sharrock; Graham Button; | |Author(s)=Wes Sharrock; Graham Button; | ||
| − | |Title=On the | + | |Title=On the relevance of Habermas’ theory of communicative action for CSCW |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Habermas; Groupware; Social action; Communicative action | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Habermas; Groupware; Social action; Communicative action | ||
|Key=Sharrock-Button1997a | |Key=Sharrock-Button1997a | ||
|Year=1997 | |Year=1997 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
| − | |Journal=Computer | + | |Journal=Computer Supported Cooperative Work |
|Volume=6 | |Volume=6 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=369–389 |
| − | |Abstract= | + | |URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008644224566 |
| − | that Juergen | + | |DOI=10.1023/A:1008644224566 |
| − | applying | + | |Abstract=We examine the argument put forward by Ojelanki Nygwenyama andKalle Lyytinen that Juergen Habermas's theory of communicativeaction is relevant for the analysis and design of groupwaresystems. We suggest that CSCW champions of Habermas oftenoverlook the fact that his theory can be criticised in itsown right, and go on to outline its contestable character inan appraisal of his understanding of the ‘ideal speech situation’.We then move to Nygwenyama and Lyytinen's implementation ofHabermas's schema and argue that their categories of analysisare both arbitrarily constructed and applied. In conclusion,we question the extent to which grand, holistic, synthesisingsociological theories offer a way forward for designers andpoint to the difficulties of practically applying Nygwenyamaand Lyytinen's categories of analysis. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:56, 26 October 2019
| Sharrock-Button1997a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Sharrock-Button1997a |
| Author(s) | Wes Sharrock, Graham Button |
| Title | On the relevance of Habermas’ theory of communicative action for CSCW |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Habermas, Groupware, Social action, Communicative action |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1997 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Computer Supported Cooperative Work |
| Volume | 6 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 369–389 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1023/A:1008644224566 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
We examine the argument put forward by Ojelanki Nygwenyama andKalle Lyytinen that Juergen Habermas's theory of communicativeaction is relevant for the analysis and design of groupwaresystems. We suggest that CSCW champions of Habermas oftenoverlook the fact that his theory can be criticised in itsown right, and go on to outline its contestable character inan appraisal of his understanding of the ‘ideal speech situation’.We then move to Nygwenyama and Lyytinen's implementation ofHabermas's schema and argue that their categories of analysisare both arbitrarily constructed and applied. In conclusion,we question the extent to which grand, holistic, synthesisingsociological theories offer a way forward for designers andpoint to the difficulties of practically applying Nygwenyamaand Lyytinen's categories of analysis.
Notes
