Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Creating Conditions for Participation: Conflicts and Resources in Systems Development

Bodker, Sussane·1996·Human–Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

User participation has been recognized as a way of gaining more knowledge about work and improving the quality of the computer application to be designed. Often the problems of user participation have been discussed from the point of view of researchers getting access to the users. Yet user participation should also be seen from the point of view of the conditions of the participation process-that is, how the conditions are set for the users to participate with designers (and managers). Experiences from participatory design projects show problems that participatory design research needs to deal with. This article suggests that the Scandinavian collective resource projects can help research in this process. However, these projects were carried out under circumstances quite different from those of corporations in the 1990s, and this fact must certainly be considered when investigating the creation of conditions for participation. The article presents a recent project, AT project, to discuss the concerns and conditions of participatory design projects today. In the AT project, the actors differed from the collective resource projects in that the actors included several different groups of workers as well as management. This caused the project to focus on resource acquisition for the whole organization as well as groups within it. Part of the idea was to utilize standard technology; at the same time, the project was to develop and implement overall visions about the use of computer technology in the organization. Inspired by philosophical approaches to human development, this article reconsiders the resources acquired in such settings and juxtaposes the work of setting up a technical platform for everyday use with the expansive codevelopment of accompanying visions. The article goes on to suggest that new alliances between groups in organizations-with due concern for their diversity of resources, and with constructive use of the conflicts inherent in the organization-can be a way forward in empowering organizations, making room for groups and individuals within them to act.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Bansler, J. & Kraft, P. (1992). The collective resource approach: The Scandinavian experience. Proceedings of the PDC'92 Partic@atory Design Conference, 127-136. New York: ACM.
  2. Bedker, S. (1993). Historical analysis and conflicting perspectives-Contextualizing HCI. In L. Bass, J. Gornostaev, & C. Unger, (1993). Proceedings of the E WCW1'93 Third International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 1 - 10. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer. · DOI
  3. Bedker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M. & Sundblad, Y. (1987). A utopian experience. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng. (Eds.), Computers and democracy-A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 251-278). Aldershot, England: Avebury. CREATING CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION 235
  4. Bedker, S., Ehn, P., Knudsen, J. L., Kyng, M. & Madsen, K. H. (1988). Computer support for cooperative design. Froceedings of the CSCW'88 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 377-394). New York: ACM. · DOI
  5. Bedker, S. & Grenbck, K. (1991). Design in action: From prototyping by demonstration to cooperative prototyping. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 197-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  6. Ehn, P. & Kyng, M. (1987). The collective resource approach to systems design. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy -A Scandinavian challenge. (pp. 17-58). Aldershot, England: Avebury.
  7. Ehn, P. & Kyng, M. (1991). Cardboard computers: Mocking-it-up or hands-on the future. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Des@ at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 169-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  8. Ehn, P. and Sandberg, A. (1979). God utredning [Good investi ation]. In A Sandberg (Ed.), Utredning o d fbrcindring i fbrvaltningen (pp. 11-577. Stockholm: Liber.
  9. Ehn, P. & Sjogren, D. (1991). From system description to scripts for action. In J. Greenbaum, & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 241-268). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  10. Giddens, A. (1990). % comequences of modernity, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  11. Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.). (1991). Design at work: Cooperative desrgn of computer system. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  12. Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development organizations. In A. Namioka, & D. Schuler (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles andpractices (pp. 99-122). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  13. Jungk, R. & Miillert, N. (1987). Future workshops: How to create desirablefitures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.
  14. Kyng M., 1989, Technology and People, 4, 157, 10.1108/eb022660 · DOI
  15. Kyng, M. & Mathiassen, L. (1982). Systems development and trade union activities. In N. Bjem-Andersen, M. Earl, 0. Holst, & E. Mumford (Eds.), Infirmation society, for richer, for poorer (pp. 247-262). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  16. Markussen, R. (1993). A historical perspective on work practices and technology. In P. B. Andersen, B. Holmqvist, & J. F. Jensen (Eds.), Tire computer as medium (pp. 457-476). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Mogensen, P. (1994). Cooperative analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University.
  18. Newrnan, W. & Lamming, M. (1995). Interactive system &sign. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  19. Pape, T. C. & Thoresen, K. (1987). Development of common systems by prototypins. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng (Eds.), Computers and democracy-A Scandinavian chalbge. (pp. 297-314). Aldershot, England: Avebury.
  20. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. & Carey, T. (1994). Human-Cotnputer Interclction. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.
  21. Trigg, R. & bdker, S. (1994). From implementation to dear : Tailoring and the emergence of systematization in CSCW. A o c : e ~ ~ aft& C !? CW94 Coflfemce on Computer-S##mtbd CD0pma:iac Wwk, 45-54. Mew York: ACM.
  22. Virkkunen J., 1991, LCHCNmsIctter, 73, 97

Cited by

See all 282

Metadata

Authors
Bodker, S.
Venue
Human–Computer Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1996-09
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
215-236
ISSN
  • 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7051
DOI
10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2
OpenAlex
W2135652757
Cited by
282
References
0
FWCI
16.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Creating Conditions for Participation: Conflicts and Resources in Systems Development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2
The paper
Bodker, S. (1996). Creating Conditions for Participation: Conflicts and Resources in Systems Development. Human–Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.