Ònot either one, not both combined, but both alone, connected and transcended.Ó ÐEngestršm A materialist and dialectical framework for understanding and influencing the field of use and design of computer artefacts has been introduced.
Materialist because it insists on the reality of the material world and the material character of mental phenomena; dialectical because it rejects the idea that human life is a mechanical product of its material basis (including the physiological structure of the brain); the mental and the material de-termining each other in a dialectical relation. Activity theory has been pointed to as a possible, although not unproblematic, basic framework for systems development research; integrating the relevant and necessary as-pects involved in designing computer artefacts (human-computer interac-tion, design, organisainterac-tion, programming, cooperainterac-tion, etc.), not necessarily operational at a detailed technical level, but as a general Òworld viewÓ under which the sub-fields can be integrated.
The concept of design artefacts has been introduced as a unifying perspec-tive on systems development, emphasising material mediation in design,.
The concept is based on a dialectical materialist approach comprising activ-ity theory as a general perspective (mainly Engestršm), and specifically the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary artefacts (Wartofsky). The dialec-tical materialist background has been supplemented with the notion of boundary objects (Star), as mediators in boundary zones. The argument has been based on the tenet of activity theory that human praxis is mediated by artefacts and is continually changing in the process of socio cultural devel-opment; and further that the history of praxis is crystallised into artefacts.
Design has been pictured as a zone where heterogeneous praxes meet to change a given praxis though the construction and introduction of new arte-facts, mediated by design artefacts making different sense to the various praxes (boundary objects). As special instances of design artefacts, trans-formators, mediating design as a transformation process emulating the pro-cess of development in use, and abductors,mediating the development of new motives, have been introduced.
Design artefacts
The idea in activity theory that human endeavour is mediated by culturally developing artefacts permeates the entire contribution. In understanding design and in understanding the relation between research and design, this tenet is expressed in the notion of design artefacts, which is the central con-cept introduced in the thesis. With reference to WartofskyÕs terminology, it has been argued that design artefacts are clusters of primary secondary and tertiary artefacts (or they are part of such), implying that they mediate the direct production of the new computer artefact, that they are representing the considered work praxis as well as design work and, finally, that they take part in a non-productive off-line loop of free imagination. With refer-ence to the concept of boundary objects and the concept of zone discussed by Engestršm (1996) and others, it has been argued that design artefacts me-diate design in a boundary zone, where heterogeneous praxes meet to create the new. With reference to the distinction between primary and secondary artefacts and the general tension in language between meaning and sense (Vygotsky), it has been argued that design artefacts have a precarious dou-ble character often emerging as a conflict between principles and praxis. The concept of design artefacts and mediation is a unifying concept in the sense that it is possible to understand all outcomes of systems development re-search, and computer science16 in general, as design artefacts, and to appre-ciate the value of these outcomes according to how they mediate design.
Development in use and use in design
Connecting use and design is an old idea, exemplified by the involvement of users in design, and by the concept of tailorable systems. To maintain the focus on use quality as a product of the development of use itself, the impor-tant concept of tailorability (Trigg et al. 1987, Henderson & Kyng 1991, M¿rch 1997) has been left out of the discussion. As indicated in the discus-sion of support for the development of transparent interaction (Bardram &
Bertelsen 1995), computer artefacts are changing during use without being altered technically (e.g. by tailoring). With reference to the notion of crys-tallisation of activity into successive generations of artefacts, it has been argued that the notion of design as the transformation of artefacts from the domain of use, is connecting design and use, ensuring that the new computer artefact makes sense in the considered praxis. Transformation of artefacts establishes a boundary zone of use and design, the transformed artefacts being boundary objects in the double sense of both mediating across hetero-geneous communities and across the use-design border. It has been argued that artefacts maintain identity across transformation, abstractly as they
16Computer science, not only meaning the sub-disciplines which Naur calls Datalogy, but the whole spectrum of fields of research dealing with use and design of computer artefacts.
continue to make sense in the same way for the involved praxes, and be-cause representations in design in this situation are the secondary artefacts maintaining praxis, made explicit. As a particular result, it has been argued that understanding representations in design in terms of transformation yields a solution to the recurring referent system problem in object-oriented methods.
Radically pragmatic philosophy of science
Based on the notion of design artefacts, a radically pragmatic philosophy of science has been suggested. Pragmatic, because the validity of a theory is appreciated based on its mediation of design activity (or other praxis).
Radically pragmatic, because validity is not appraised based on the random preferences of detached individuals, but based on the reality of concrete so-cietal praxis at a specific point on the trajectory of cultural development;
thus, neither relativism nor utilitarism. This normative approach to the study of theory and history of disciplines dealing with use and design of computer artefacts has yielded a solution to the difficulties experienced ear-lier (Bertelsen 1993) in trying to reject the orthodox cognitivist engineering psychology of human-computer interaction (Card et al. 1983). However, it has also induced enhanced sensitivity to the motives and achievements of these early contributions. The radical pragmatic philosophy of science makes it possible to both maintain earlier contributions and to destroy these in the creation of a dialectical materialist basis for design, thus for-matting the basis of systems development research so that it has both an exclusive world view and is inclusive in the adaptation of earlier achieve-ments.
ÒThe newÓ
Proponents of activity theory have fanatically claimed that development and innovation are strictly collective achievements. Thus, Kuutti (1989) con-cludes that there is no need for the individualist concept of creativity, be-cause all relevant aspects of development can be systematically understood in terms of expansive learning. By understanding development as being the collective answer to a need state, such positions miss that innovation in late modernity is becoming separated from production. It is essential to be able to comprehend, at least partially, the exceptional creativity of individuals, not in idealist terms but as a materialist theory of genius. WartofskyÕs con-cept of tertiary artefacts provides such an understanding of individualist creativity as a material phenomenon in the off-line loop. Thus, tertiary arte-facts is a basic concept in understanding creativity and innovation as a ma-terial phenomenon, in a way that transcends the limitations of the histori-cally deterministic activity theory. Furthermore, by bridging the gab be-tween individual inspiration and collective achievement, the notion of
ter-tiary artefacts will play an important role in maturing a dialectical materi-alist notion of horizontal development that is evading relativism.