48,581 research outputs found

    A Methodological Framework for Socio-Cognitive Analyses of Collaborative Design of Open Source Software

    Get PDF
    Open Source Software (OSS) development challenges traditional software engineering practices. In particular, OSS projects are managed by a large number of volunteers, working freely on the tasks they choose to undertake. OSS projects also rarely rely on explicit system-level design, or on project plans or schedules. Moreover, OSS developers work in arbitrary locations and collaborate almost exclusively over the Internet, using simple tools such as email and software code tracking databases (e.g. CVS). All the characteristics above make OSS development akin to weaving a tapestry of heterogeneous components. The OSS design process relies on various types of actors: people with prescribed roles, but also elements coming from a variety of information spaces (such as email and software code). The objective of our research is to understand the specific hybrid weaving accomplished by the actors of this distributed, collective design process. This, in turn, challenges traditional methodologies used to understand distributed software engineering: OSS development is simply too "fibrous" to lend itself well to analysis under a single methodological lens. In this paper, we describe the methodological framework we articulated to analyze collaborative design in the Open Source world. Our framework focuses on the links between the heterogeneous components of a project's hybrid network. We combine ethnography, text mining, and socio-technical network analysis and visualization to understand OSS development in its totality. This way, we are able to simultaneously consider the social, technical, and cognitive aspects of OSS development. We describe our methodology in detail, and discuss its implications for future research on distributed collective practices

    Collaborative design : managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives

    Get PDF
    This paper focuses on two characteristics of collaborative design with respect to cooperative work: the importance of work interdependencies linked to the nature of design problems; and the fundamental function of design cooperative work arrangement which is the confrontation and combination of perspectives. These two intrinsic characteristics of the design work stress specific cooperative processes: coordination processes in order to manage task interdependencies, establishment of common ground and negotiation mechanisms in order to manage the integration of multiple perspectives in design

    Proceedings of the ECCS 2005 satellite workshop: embracing complexity in design - Paris 17 November 2005

    Get PDF
    Embracing complexity in design is one of the critical issues and challenges of the 21st century. As the realization grows that design activities and artefacts display properties associated with complex adaptive systems, so grows the need to use complexity concepts and methods to understand these properties and inform the design of better artifacts. It is a great challenge because complexity science represents an epistemological and methodological swift that promises a holistic approach in the understanding and operational support of design. But design is also a major contributor in complexity research. Design science is concerned with problems that are fundamental in the sciences in general and complexity sciences in particular. For instance, design has been perceived and studied as a ubiquitous activity inherent in every human activity, as the art of generating hypotheses, as a type of experiment, or as a creative co-evolutionary process. Design science and its established approaches and practices can be a great source for advancement and innovation in complexity science. These proceedings are the result of a workshop organized as part of the activities of a UK government AHRB/EPSRC funded research cluster called Embracing Complexity in Design (www.complexityanddesign.net) and the European Conference in Complex Systems (complexsystems.lri.fr). Embracing complexity in design is one of the critical issues and challenges of the 21st century. As the realization grows that design activities and artefacts display properties associated with complex adaptive systems, so grows the need to use complexity concepts and methods to understand these properties and inform the design of better artifacts. It is a great challenge because complexity science represents an epistemological and methodological swift that promises a holistic approach in the understanding and operational support of design. But design is also a major contributor in complexity research. Design science is concerned with problems that are fundamental in the sciences in general and complexity sciences in particular. For instance, design has been perceived and studied as a ubiquitous activity inherent in every human activity, as the art of generating hypotheses, as a type of experiment, or as a creative co-evolutionary process. Design science and its established approaches and practices can be a great source for advancement and innovation in complexity science. These proceedings are the result of a workshop organized as part of the activities of a UK government AHRB/EPSRC funded research cluster called Embracing Complexity in Design (www.complexityanddesign.net) and the European Conference in Complex Systems (complexsystems.lri.fr)

    Une approche multidimensionnelle de la participation dans les communautés de développement de logiciels libres

    Get PDF
    National audienceNotre étude vise à analyser les formes de participation dans les communautés de développement de logiciels libres. Nous proposons une approche méthodologique multidimensionnelle de la participation dans ces communautés, en nous basant sur le concept de rôle. On considère le rôle en tant que phénomène émergeant de l'interaction. Ce concept est développé selon plusieurs dimensions : une dimension sociale, une dimension cognitive et une dimension interactive. Notre approche se base sur l'exploitation et l'analyse des interactions dans trois espaces d'activités (discussion, documentation, implémentation) ainsi que sur les interactions conjointes dans ces espaces d'activités

    Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments

    Get PDF
    Over the last decade, researchers have developed sophisticated online learning environments to support students engaging in argumentation. This review first considers the range of functionalities incorporated within these online environments. The review then presents five categories of analytic frameworks focusing on (1) formal argumentation structure, (2) normative quality, (3) nature and function of contributions within the dialog, (4) epistemic nature of reasoning, and (5) patterns and trajectories of participant interaction. Example analytic frameworks from each category are presented in detail rich enough to illustrate their nature and structure. This rich detail is intended to facilitate researchers’ identification of possible frameworks to draw upon in developing or adopting analytic methods for their own work. Each framework is applied to a shared segment of student dialog to facilitate this illustration and comparison process. Synthetic discussions of each category consider the frameworks in light of the underlying theoretical perspectives on argumentation, pedagogical goals, and online environmental structures. Ultimately the review underscores the diversity of perspectives represented in this research, the importance of clearly specifying theoretical and environmental commitments throughout the process of developing or adopting an analytic framework, and the role of analytic frameworks in the future development of online learning environments for argumentation

    Online epistemic communities: theoretical and methodological directions for understanding knowledge co-elaboration in new digital spaces

    Get PDF
    This paper presents, illustrates and discusses a generic framework for studying knowledge co-elaboration in online epistemic communities (“OECs”). Our approach is characterised by: considering knowledge co-elaboration as a design activity; distinguishing discussion and production spaces in OECs; characterising participation via the notion of role; fine-grained analyses of meaning, content and communicative functions in interactions. On this basis, three key issues for ergonomics research on OECs are discussed and illustrated by results from our previous studies on OSS and Wikipedia. One issue concerns the interrelation between design (task) and regulation. Whereas design task-oriented activity is distributed among participants, we illustrate that OCEs function with specialised emerging roles of group regulation. However, the task-oriented activity also functions at an interpersonal level, as an interplay of knowledge-based discussion with negotiation of competencies. Another issue concerns the foci of activity on the (designed) knowledge object. Based on a generic task model, we illustrate asymmetry and distinctiveness in tasks’ foci of participants. The last issue concerns how design-use mediation is ensured by specific forms of mediation roles in OECs. Finally we discuss the degree of generality of our framework and draw some perspectives for extending our framework to other OECs

    Methodology : from speaking about writing to tracking text production

    Get PDF
    Doing writing research from an applied linguistics perspective means investigating individual, collaborative, and organizational writing and text production as language-based activities in complex and dynamic real-life contexts. In doing so, micro and macro levels, product and process perspectives, as well as theoretical and practical questions are combined in transdisciplinary approaches. Appropriate methods have to be deliberately chosen and transparently explained across disciplinary boundaries. Methodological questions need to be clarified, such as: which method fits which problem – and how should and can various methods complement each other? In this chapter, we start from two methodologically complementary ways of doing research into real-life writing processes (Part 1). These approaches illustrate why collecting data represents a key problem in the history of writing research (2). We then outline a typology of state-of-the-art methods in writing research (3) and explain chal- lenges of combining perspectives and methods in research projects (4). This allows us to evaluate what sophisticated methodology in writing research can contribute to applied linguistics (5) and to conclude by sketching a related research roadmap (6). In the reference section, we focus on work combining approaches from writing research and applied linguistics in methodologically innovative ways (7)

    Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method

    Get PDF
    Background: The extensive and rapidly expanding research literature on electronic patient records (EPRs) presents challenges to systematic reviewers. This literature is heterogeneous and at times conflicting, not least because it covers multiple research traditions with different underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches. Aim: To map, interpret and critique the range of concepts, theories, methods and empirical findings on EPRs, with a particular emphasis on the implementation and use of EPR systems. Method: Using the meta-narrative method of systematic review, and applying search strategies that took us beyond the Medline-indexed literature, we identified over 500 full-text sources. We used ‘conflicting’ findings to address higher-order questions about how the EPR and its implementation were differently conceptualised and studied by different communities of researchers. Main findings: Our final synthesis included 24 previous systematic reviews and 94 additional primary studies, most of the latter from outside the biomedical literature. A number of tensions were evident, particularly in relation to: [1] the EPR (‘container’ or ‘itinerary’); [2] the EPR user (‘information-processer’ or ‘member of socio-technical network’); [3] organizational context (‘the setting within which the EPR is implemented’ or ‘the EPR-in-use’); [4] clinical work (‘decision-making’ or ‘situated practice’); [5] the process of change (‘the logic of determinism’ or ‘the logic of opposition’); [6] implementation success (‘objectively defined’ or ‘socially negotiated’); and [7] complexity and scale (‘the bigger the better’ or ‘small is beautiful’). Findings suggest that integration of EPRs will always require human work to re-contextualize knowledge for different uses; that whilst secondary work (audit, research, billing) may be made more efficient by the EPR, primary clinical work may be made less efficient; that paper, far from being technologically obsolete, currently offers greater ecological flexibility than most forms of electronic record; and that smaller systems may sometimes be more efficient and effective than larger ones. Conclusions: The tensions and paradoxes revealed in this study extend and challenge previous reviews and suggest that the evidence base for some EPR programs is more limited than is often assumed. We offer this paper as a preliminary contribution to a much-needed debate on this evidence and its implications, and suggest avenues for new research
    corecore