Research Project as Boundary Object: negotiating the conceptual design of a tool for International Development

• Anderson, T.D. (2007): ‘Settings, arenas and boundary objects: socio–material framings of information practices’, Information Research, vol. 12, no. 4, paper colis10. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/12–4/colis/colis10.html.

• Bentley R. and Dourish P. (1995): ‘Medium vs. mechanism: Supporting collaboration through customisation’, in H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad and K. Schmidt (eds.): ECSCW'95, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 133–149.

  Google Scholar

• Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. S. (1999): Sorting things out: classification and its consequences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

  Google Scholar

• Dearden, A. and Light, A. (2008): ‘Designing for e–Social Action: An Application Taxonomy’, in Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference 2008. Available at: http://www3.shu.ac.uk/Conferences/DRS/Proceedings/Proceedings.htm.

• Dearden, A. and Rizvi, H. (2008): Adapting Participatory and Agile Software Methods to Participatory Rural Development, PDC'08, Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN, pp. 221–225.

  Google Scholar

• Denzin, N.K. (1989): Interpretive interactionism, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, USA.

  Google Scholar

• Donaldson, K. (2008): ‘Why to be Wary of "Design for Developing Countries"’, Ambidextrous, Spring 2008, pp. 35–37.

  Google Scholar

• Dorst, K (2003): Understanding Design, BIS, Netherlands.

  Google Scholar

• Dunne, A and Raby, F. (1999): Hertzian Tales, Royal College of Art, London, UK.

  Google Scholar

• Erickson, T. (1995): ‘Notes on design practice: stories and prototypes as catalysts for communication’, in J. Carroll (ed.): Scenario–based design: envisioning work and technology in system development, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 37–58.

  Google Scholar

• Fischer, G. (2003): ‘Meta-Design: Beyond User-Centered and Participatory Design’, in J. Jacko and C. Stephanidis (eds.): HCII' 03, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 88–92.

  Google Scholar

• Fischer, G. (2007): ‘Designing Socio-Technical Environments in Support of Meta-Design and Social Creativity’, CSCL'07, Rutgers University, July, pp. 1–10.

  Google Scholar

• Gaver, W.W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S. and Walker, B. (2004): ‘Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty’, Interactions, vol.11, no.5, pp 53–56.

  Article Google Scholar

• Greenbaum, J and Kyng, M (eds.) (1991): Design at work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

  Google Scholar

• Holden, J. (2004): Capturing Cultural Value. Demos, London. Available at: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/CapturingCulturalValue.pdf.

• Irani, L., Dourish, P., Grinter, R. and Phillips, K. (working paper, 2009): Postcolonial Computing.

  Google Scholar

• Kleine, D. (2008): ‘Doing action research on Chilean Fairtrade wine value chains’, Geographical Journal, vol. 174, no. 2, pp. 109–123.

  Article Google Scholar

• Light, A. (2008): ‘The Challenge of Representing a Sociotechnical System: Fair Tracing and the Value Chain’, Sociotechnical Aspects of Interaction Design, London, May 2008.

  Google Scholar

• Light, A. and Luckin, R. (2008): ‘Social Justice and User-centred Design’, Futurelab Opening Education series.

  Google Scholar

• Light, A., Kleine, D and Vivent, M. (2009): ‘Performing Charlotte: a Tool to bridge Cultures in Participatory Design’ Int. Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 1(2)

  Google Scholar

• Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985): Naturalistic inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

  Google Scholar

• Muller, M.J, (2002): ‘Participatory Design: the third space in HCI’, in J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds.): The Human-computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp1051 – 1068.

  Google Scholar

• Nardi, B.A. & O'Day, V.L. (1999): Information ecologies: using technology with heart, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

  Google Scholar

• Porter, M.E. (1985): Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press, NY.

  Google Scholar

• Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1984): ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’, in N. Cross (ed.): Developments in Design Methodology, Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 135–144.

  Google Scholar

• Roth, W.-M., and McGinn, M. K. (1998): ‘Inscriptions: towards a theory of representing as social practice’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 68, no. 1, pp 35–59.

  Google Scholar

• Star, S. L. (1996): ‘Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems’, in Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (eds.): Cognition and communication at work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 296–318.

  Google Scholar

• Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989): ‘Institutional ecology, 'translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 19, no. 3, pp 387–420.

  Article Google Scholar

• Sterling, B. (2005): Shaping Things, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

  Google Scholar

• Suchman, L. (1987): Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

  Google Scholar

Download references