The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ...

Evaluation
to design is problematic even if a theory of good descriptive power is used to
systematically outline the as-is situation (Dourish 2006).
In the early phases of the empirical work, I sought to use theoretical concepts mainly as
sensitizing concepts (Blumer 1954). In choosing theory, I aimed for „conceptual
simplicity‟ to gain the aid of some structure without having a framework too strongly
enforcing a preconception of what was interesting about the cases. A restricted use of
theoretical concepts creates an opening for the careful combination with other concepts
on an „at need‟ basis, to conceptualize findings and guide further research. I consider
CoP to be an analytical unit fitting these purposes, being adequate for shedding light on
collaborative work and the use of collaboration tools within teams and between the team
and other project stakeholders, and allowing for a combination with the „standard
repertoire‟ of CSCW (e.g. the concepts of awareness (Dourish and Bellotti 1992;
Gutwin and Greenberg 2002) and coordination (Carstensen and Schmidt 2002 (1999);
Schmidt and Simone 1996)).
At the point in the PhD work where attention was set on reflection there was a need for
theory shedding light on the process of reflection specifically. Strauss‟ concept of
project trajectories (Strauss 1993) and the model of the reflective process (Boud et al.
1985a) could be used as tools for analyzing the reflective process in a team. A strength
of the model of the reflective process is that it provides support for design by outlining
specific elements that may be included and supported in a reflection process. The choice
of drawing on SE project retrospectives approaches from industry in the PhD work as a
starting point for implementing the reflective processes in the project teams emerged
from personal communication with a colleague engaged in such practices.
The combination of the above theories and approaches led to a general research focus
on the role of representations in reflection and a need to theoretically frame the process
of reflection in the context of the team‟s overall activity. Activity theory was an option,
having a strength in accounting for the role of tools (“Its richness for CSCW lies in
principle in its approach to technology as a mediator of human activity, which in a
dialectic relationship with the cultural world produces activity.” (Randall et al. 2007,
p.90). However, the role of representations, internal and external, is more explicitly
addressed in DCog. DCog allows for a combination of a social and cognitive
perspective on collaborative work, being a framework “capable of capturing cognitive
activities as embodied and situated within the context in which they occur: social and
organizational” (Rogers and Ellis 1994). Combining this with theory accounting for the
process of reflection, I had a framework adequate for analyzing the case forming the
basis of P7 and P8. Concepts from DCog provided a language for the reflection model
75