This paper describes the shifting evolution of the relationship between one Swedish laboratory involved in the design of systems for computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) and its industrial and government partners over the past decade. It explores the impact of increasing intersection and new configurations of relationships between these previously distinct sectors on the development of CSCW both in terms of disciplinary knowledge and institutional structures to cope with this hybrid object. It finds that a micro-level, Latourian analysis suitably explains choices at a laboratory level, but that these specific issues take on their full significance in the context of changes in the broader social and policy spheres.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GibbonsMichaelLimogesCamilleNowotnyHelgaSchwartzmanSimonScottPeterTrowMartin, The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London, 1994.
2.
A lowest common denominator definition of CSCW is that they are computer systems which help people to work together — for example, collaborative text editing, teleconferencing, group decision support systems, etc.
3.
CallonMichelLatourBruno, ‘Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so’, in KnorrKarenCicourelAaron, eds, Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro Sociologies, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1981, pp 277–303. Callon and Latour suggest that scientists enrol others in their worlds through a process of translation, defined as ‘all the negotiations, intrigues, calculations, acts of persuasion and violences, thanks to which an actor or force takes, or causes to be conferred on itself, authority to speak or act on behalf of another’ (p 279). The process begins when actors try to make themselves indispensable to others by defining the problems of the latter and proposing their programme as a solution. They then proceed to build a web of connections between the various players in the scenario. Finally they acquire legitimacy to speak in the name of their new allies, and to use these allies as resources to further increase their power and influence.
4.
Op cit, Ref 1, p 167.
5.
Op cit, Ref 1, p 36.
6.
Op cit, Ref 1, p 41.
7.
IPLab's involvement in computer-supported cooperative work can be traced back to the UTOPIA project in the early 1980s. UTOPIA focused on the central problem of how to introduce computers into typesetting for newspapers without decreasing the quality of working life. It gave several key Lab members, then computer scientists in a mathematically and theoretically oriented department, their first experience of working on a real-world problem, as well as their first industrial contacts.
8.
Interview with Olle Baiter, 24 May 1995, p 3.
9.
Funded by the European Community from 1992 to 1995, the ESPRIT Basic Research Action COMIC (Computer-based Mechanisms for Interaction in Collaborative Work) involved 12 European university institutions and research institutes in computer science, psychology and sociology.
10.
Interview with Yngve Sundblad, 11 May 1995, pp 7–9.
11.
Ibid, p 7.
12.
Ibid, pp 7–8.
13.
KaghanWilliam N.BarnettGerald B., ‘The Desktop Model of Innovation in Digital Media’, in EtzkowitzHenryLeydesdorffLoet, eds, Universities in the Global Knowledge Economy: A Co-evolution of University—Industry—Government Relations, Cassell Academic, London, 1997.
14.
Op cit, Ref 1.
15.
EtzkowitzHenryLeydesdorffLoet, eds, Universities in the Global Knowledge Economy: A Co-evolution of University—Industry—Government Relations, Cassell Academic, London, 1997.
16.
BetzFrederick‘Industry/university centers for connecting industry to science’, in KaykayogluRuhiKaynakOkyay, eds, Proceedings of the International Conference of Technology Management: University/Industry/Government Collaboration, Istanbul, pp. 24–26 June 1996, pp 1–5. Also published as ‘Industry/university centres in the USA—connecting industry to science’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 10, No 6, December 1996, pp 349–354.
17.
‘Loet Leydesdorff and Henry Etzkowitz, The future location of research: A Triple Helix of university—industry—Government relations II’, EASST Review, Vol 15, No 4, December 1996.
18.
This is most clearly evident in the collaboration between SICS and IPLab, which maybe seen as a practice run preliminary to the establishment of CID. Located in Sweden's Silicon Valley at Kista just outside Stockholm, SICS is an ‘industrial research institute’, meaning that half its money comes from government and the rest from industry, primarily telecommunications and computer companies. Consequently its mission is somewhat application-oriented, although much of its research has not yet led directly to marketable products. Collaboration is maintained through both personal and institutional involvement, with a number of KTH professors acting as scientific advisers to SICS projects, and many SICS employees pursuing doctoral studies at KTH. Furthermore Yngve Sundblad coordinated the participation of both institutes in the COMIC project.
19.
Interview with Yngve Sundblad, 26 May 1995, p 4.
20.
Op cit, Ref 17.
21.
Op cit, Ref 13.
22.
Op cit, Ref 17.
23.
Van den BeltHenkRipArie, ‘The Nelson-Winter-Dosi model and the synthetic dye chemistry’, in BijkerWiebe, eds, The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1987, pp 135–158.
24.
For example, CID is working closely with IPLab on more basic CSCW research within the joint NUTEK and RALF (Council for Working Life Research) programme SAMT (Cooperation and Technology). Another indication of pro-active government response is the establishment of a research school on Human Machine Interaction, with a node focusing on IT design in Stockholm and a node focusing on real-time interaction in Linköping. The CID web page outlines the perceived mutual benefits and complementarities: ‘The HMI research school will provide CID with competent researchers and CID will provide the research school with research projects and research questions of interest for PhD and licenciate work.’
25.
LatourBruno, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.
26.
This mayhave something to do with the relatively small size of the CSCW and interface design fields in Sweden; everyone concerned with these topics ‘sort of knows each other.
27.
Latour (Op cit, Ref 25) refers to this strategy as proposing a short detour.
28.
MarmolinHansSundbladYngve, Research Strategy and Research Programme for CID, a Competency Centre for User Oriented IT Design, IPLab, NADA, KTH, Stockholm, 1995, p 13.
