nach oben

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Erschienen in:

07.04.2020

The role of Web 2.0 in collaborative design: an ANT perspective

verfasst von: Lockias Chitanana

Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Ausgabe 5/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This paper analyses Web 2.0 facilitated collaborative design among undergraduate engineering students. The study used the actor–network theory as a methodological and analytical framework to study the role of Web 2.0 technology in the collaborative design process. Participants were drawn from fourth-year engineering students at a university of technology in Zimbabwe. Data were constituted by using a questionnaire, comprising closed and open-ended questions, semi-structured interview schedules, observation schedules, and non-participant observation of online activities by student designers. The findings of the study show that Web 2.0 technology stirred the collaborative design process by stimulating unpredictable actions, thus actively contributing to shaping the emerging collaborative design network. The study concludes that Web 2.0 technologies should not be viewed as simple tools for communication, as described in some literature but as non-human actors which can mediate the collaborative design process and shape the way it is constitued and carryed out in practice.

Vorheriger Artikel Technology education in South Africa since the new dispensation in 1994: An analysis of curriculum documents and a meta-synthesis of scholarly work

Nächster Artikel Practice before theory? An approach for testing sequencing effects in pedagogical design

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Akama, Y. (2015). Being awake to Ma: Designing in-between-ness as a way of becoming with. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081243.CrossRef

Andersen, L. B., Danholt, P., Halskov, K., Hansen, N. B., & Lauritsen, P. (2015). Participation as a matter of concern in participatory design. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081246.CrossRef

Atkinson, C. J. (2000). The ‘Soft Information Systems and Technologies Methodology’(SISTeM): An actor-network contingency approach to integrated development. European Journal of Information Systems, 9(2), 104–123.CrossRef

Bilodeau, A., Galarneau, M., Lefebvre, C., & Potvin, L. (2019). Linking process and effects of intersectoral action on local neighbourhoods: systemic modelling based on actor–network-theory. Sociology of Health & Illness, 41(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12813.CrossRef

Bilodeau, A., & Potvin, L. (2018). Unpacking complexity in public health interventions with actor-network theory. Health Promotion International, 33(1), 173–181.

Binder, T., Brandt, E., Ehn, P., & Halse, J. (2015). Democratic design experiments: Between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081248.CrossRef

Brandt, E., Binder, T., & Sanders, E. (2013). Tools and techniques: Ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), In international handbook of participatory design (pp. 145–181). New York: Routledge.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: The domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action & belief: A new sociology of knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Callon, M. (Ed.). (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. London: Routledge.

Callon, M. (2004). The role of hybrid communities and socio-technical arrangements in the participatory design. Journal of the Center for Information Studies, 5(3), 3–10.

Chitanana, L. (2016). Using web 2.0 technologies to facilitate the collaborative design process among undergraduate engineering students: An actor-network study. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Kwazulu Natal, Durban.

Craft, B. (2013). Sketch-Ins: A method for participatory design in technology-enhanced learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

Crawford, C. S. (2005). Actor–network theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Czarniawska, B. (2006). Book review: Bruno Latour: Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor–network theory. Organization Studies, 27(10), 1553–1557.CrossRef

Fioravanti, C., & Velho, L. (2010). Let’s follow the actors! Does actor–network theory have anything to contribute to science journalism? Journal of Science Communication, 9(4), 1–8.CrossRef

Gaver, W. W. B., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. Paper presented at the conference on human factors and computing systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL. New York.

Ham, J. J., & Schnabel, M. A. (2011). Web 2.0 virtual design studio: Social networking as a facilitator of design education. Architectural Science Review, 54(2), 108–116.CrossRef

Ham, J. J., & Schnabel, M. A. (2012). How social is the virtual design studio? A case study of a third-year design studio. Paper presented at the 17th international conference on computer-aided architectural design research in Asia, CAADRIA, Hong Kong.

Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2008). The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Hossain, M. M., & Quinn, R. J. (2012). Interactive features of Web 2.0 technologies and their potential impact in teaching-learning mathematics. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.

Inkpen, R., Collier, P., & Riley, M. (2007). Topographic relations: Developing a heuristic device for conceptualising networked relations. Area, 39, 536–543.CrossRef

Ismail, A. M., & Soliman, M. H. (2010). Integrating multi-grade collaborative learning pedagogy into design studios. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4, 201–215.

Jönsson, L., & Lensskjold, T. U. (2015). Stakes at the edge of participation: Where words and things are the entirely serious title of a problem. Nordes, 1(6), 1–9.

Kamalipour, H., Kermani, Z. M., & Houshmandipanah, E. (2014). Collaborative design studio on trial: A conceptual framework in practice. Current Urban Studies, 2(1), 1–12.CrossRef

Kurt, S. (2009). An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the use of the constructivist studio in the architectural design education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 401–408.CrossRef

Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France followed by irreductions (A. Sheridan & I. Law, Trans.). Cambridge: A Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 225–258). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Law, J. (2007). Actor–network theory and material semiotics. Retrieved from 18 February 2019. http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf. 18 February 2019

Law, J., & Mol, A. (1995). Notes on materiality and sociality. The Sociological Review, 43(2), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1995.tb00604.x.CrossRef

Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press (Elsevier).

Lindstrom, K., & Stahl, A. (2012). Making private matters public in temporary assemblies. CoDesign, 8(2–3), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.672578.CrossRef

Liu, F., & Maitlis, S. (2014). Emotional dynamics and strategizing processes: A study of strategic conversations in top team meetings. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 175–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01087.x.CrossRef

Minn, M. (2016). American long-distance locomobility and the spaces of actor–network theory. Social Sciences, 5(1), 14.CrossRef

Palmås, K., & von Busch, O. (2015). Quasi-quisling: Co-design and the assembly of collaborators AU—Palmås, Karl. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081247.CrossRef

Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A. (2009). Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 52–63.CrossRef

Pektas, S. T. (2015). The virtual design studio on the cloud: A blended and distributed approach for technology-mediated design education. Architectural Science Review, 58(3), 255–265.CrossRef

Pringle, E. (2009). The artist-led pedagogic process in the contemporary art gallery: Developing a meaning-making framework. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(2), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2009.01604.x.CrossRef

Rice, L. (2018). Nonhumans in participatory design. CoDesign, 14(3), 238–257.CrossRef

Sayes, E. (2014). Actor–network theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134–149.CrossRef

Schnabel, M. A., & Ham, J. J. (2012). Virtual design studio within a social network. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 17, 397–415.

Schnabel, M. A., & Ham, J. J. (2013). A framework for social networked architectural education, open systems. Paper presented at the 18th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2013), Hong Kong.

Schoffelen, J., Claes, S., Huybrechts, L., Martens, S., Chua, A., & Moere, A. V. (2015). Visualising things. Perspectives on how to make things public through visualisation. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081240.CrossRef

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner, how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books Inc.

Schon, D. (1984). Problems, frames, and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 133–136.

Serres, M. (1995). Angels, a modern myth. Flammarion-Pere Castor.

Smithers, A. (2010). A draft educational technology landscape. Retrieved from 18 February 2019. http://www.masmithers.com/2010/06/28/a-draft-educational-technology-landscape-map.

Stoopendaal, A., & Bal, R. (2013). Conferences, tablecloths and cupboards: How to understand the situatedness of quality improvements in long-term care. Social Science and Medicine, 78, 78–85.CrossRef

Storni, C. (2015). Notes on ANT for designers: Ontological, methodological and epistemological turn in collaborative design. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081242.CrossRef

Tolbert, D., Buzzanell, P. M., Zoltowski, C. B., Cummings, A., & Cardella, M. E. (2016). Giving and responding to feedback through visualisations in design critiques. CoDesign, 12(1–2), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1135244.CrossRef

van den Broek, A., & Rieple, A. (2017). Using actor–network theory to reveal strategy processes in design firms. Paper presented at the the design management academy: Research perspectives on creative intersections, Hong Kong.

Vinck, D. (2012). Accessing material culture by following intermediary objects. In L. Naidoo (Ed.), An ethnography of global landscapes and corridors (pp. 89–108). Rjieka: InTech.

Wilson, D. W., Lin, X., Longstreet, P., & Sarker, S. (2011). Web 2.0: A definition, literature review, and directions for future research. Paper presented at the AMCIS.

Titel: The role of Web 2.0 in collaborative design: an ANT perspective
verfasst von: Lockias Chitanana
Publikationsdatum: 07.04.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Ausgabe 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09578-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2021

Spatial development program for middle school: teacher perceptions of effectiveness

Practice before theory? An approach for testing sequencing effects in pedagogical design

Age and gender differences between pupils’ preferences in teaching general and compulsory technology education in Croatia

Framing the constructive alignment of design within technology subjects in general education

Assessing evaluation: Why student engages or resists to active learning?

Technology education in South Africa since the new dispensation in 1994: An analysis of curriculum documents and a meta-synthesis of scholarly work

Premium Partner