Planificación de las acciones preventivas necesarias para evitar, reducir o controlar los

Qualitative frameworks for analysing and understanding research settings consist of ethnographic values, assumptions, theories and techniques to construct ways of representing the elements in a research setting and the interactions between them (Grbich, 1999). Theoretical frameworks from qualitative socio-technical research have been applied in IS research projects to understand the roles and impacts of technologies in organisations, particularly on the ways people perceive and do their work (Whitman & Woszczynski, 2003).

Different socio-technical approaches align at certain points, for example applying a cultural and historical approach (a strong element of Activity Theory) to distributed cognition (Cole & Engeström, 1993), the understanding that relations or interactions involving human actors and their artefacts in the local environment are important for understanding complex processes and situations in an organisation setting (Østerlund & Carlile, 2005) and attending to issues of “human agency embedded in the everyday actions and interactions of people doing work in various organizational positions and settings” (Engeström & Middleton, 1996: 1).

Theoretical frameworks for investigating the role and impacts of information systems on work in organisations each have associated challenges and benefits for achieving research objectives. Comparative evaluations between distinct frameworks, for example distributed cognition and activity theory, identify different challenges and benefits in utilising one or the other (Halverson, 2002). The literature also contains explorations of similarities and differences between frameworks: symbolic interactionism and activity theory (Star, 1996); activity theory, cognitive ergonomics and distributed cognition theory (Decortis, Noirfalise, & Saudelli, 2000); communities of practice and activity theory in the context of social organisation learning (Elkjaer, 2003).

Socially situated, practice theories have distinct advantages over dualistic, substantialist approaches (Østerlund & Carlile, 2005); they supply a rich source of theoretical

concepts and frameworks (Gasson, 2004a). Practice theories assume reality is “vague, with blurred edge and in shades of gray” (and therefore category boundaries are also blurred). They build on process thinking and look for the emergent qualities of action, presume change and expect social conflict, and have a fluid notion of practice

(Østerlund & Carlile, 2005). This understanding aligns with the concept of ‘wicked’ problems (Rittel, 1984 [1972]).

Research that takes a specifically distributed view of work in organisations focuses on the cognitive processes of human actors in coordination with each other and the technological artefacts in their work environment (Boland, Tenkasi, & Te'eni, 1994; Greenburg & Dickelman, 2000). Gasson (2004a) indicates the suitability of adopting a framework of distributed cognition and/or one of socially situated cognition involving individuals, groups and the technological system in IS research projects.

Distributed Cognition theory (Hutchins, 1995a) is a theoretical framework that is useful to guide data collection and provide a theory for analysis of a setting involving

organised human activities. The theory focuses analysis on the cognitive role of

mediating artefacts and people-artefact cognitive interactions developing over time as a cultural phenomenon (Hutchins, 1995a). It is used to analyse the role of tools (artefacts) in computation (Hutchins, 1995a, 1995b), the organisation of team performance

(Hutchins, 1995a), communication paths and patterns in socially distributed cognitive activity (Hutchins, 1995a, 1995b, 2000) and processes of individual and organisational learning and cultural change (Hutchins, 1995a).

The theory has been subsequently applied in a range of eclectic studies at the

Distributed Cognition and Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory at the University of California San Diego (http://hci.ucsd.edu/ ), led by Professors Jim Hollan and Ed Hutchins. Recent examples include using the theory to study mobile information needs (Sohn, Li, Griswold, & Hollan, 2008), design digital artefacts to support medical conversations between deaf and hearing individuals (Piper & Hollan, 2008) and

studying ‘gestures’ as cognitive artefacts in the context of developing scientific theories (Becvar, Hollan, & Hutchins, 2008).

Distributed Cognition theory has been identified as a useful framework for research focussing on computer-supported cooperative work (Rogers & Ellis, 1994) and Human Computer Interaction (HCI) (Halverson, 1994; Hollan, Hutchins, & Kirsh, 2000) and more generally in the design of information technology to support work in organisations (Boland et al., 1994). Gasson (2004a) has noted that different perspectives or frames operating in an organisation can be analysed from a distributed cognition perspective for congruence and differences in work or knowledge coordination across domains;

intersections and union of interactions in collaborative work or how technology mediated group knowledge is constructed and used.

Wenger (1998) emphasises the concept of identity that is over time and space and multi- communal, although Østerlund and Carlile (2005) note that Wenger does not provide much empirical support for his theoretical framework at the level of multi-communities. Dimensions of change is specified in terms of an individual’s position in several

communities and modes of belonging through engagement and alignment with

communities’ practices (Østerlund & Carlile, 2005). Østerlund and Carlile (2005) also critique the broader literature that has adopted practice theory constructs for losing the relational essence of practice theory and failing to investigate the power relations, potential conflicts and contradicting interests that are co-present with evidence of positive alignment and engagement.

Communities of Practice theory (Wenger, 1998) is aligned with other practice theories (including distributed cognition and activity theory). It provides an extended source of theoretical constructs for understanding what people do and how they do it without artificial distinctions between agents and artefacts, culture and organisation: for seeing social groups in a setting as an integral whole of people in a set of dynamic relations with their tools and in their local environment (Østerlund & Carlile, 2005).

Communities of Practice theory is a social theory of learning, and as such, has not been widely used in Information Systems research. IS-related research examples include learning in virtual worlds (Oliver & Carr, 2009), a member interface approach to a mobile virtual community of practice (Kawash, 2009) and design implications for an augmented reality teaching aid (Anastassova & Burkhardt, 2009).

Activity Theory (Engeström, 1999) is a theoretical lens that is often discussed in

conjunction with distributed cognition and practice theories (Østerlund & Carlile, 2005), It takes human activity as the unit of analysis/focus. Its conceptual model for

understanding the research setting focuses on activity as a series of culturally, technically and socially mediated interactions.

Activity Theory, in common with anti-idealist, anti-individualist, anti-rationalist sociological theories, seeks to explicitly account for historical, cultural and temporal realities and the dialectal nature of workplace environments and their development (Star, 1996). It is proposed as a coherent conceptual framework that is more useful than using hybrid concepts like ‘learning organization’, ‘knowledge management’ and ‘social capital’ which operate as “stimulating but eclectic meeting points between different theoretical approaches and methodologies” (Engeström, 2000: 960). To undertake activity theoretical research (which is inherently developmental and expansive in its object) requires the commitment of the organisation to engage in a resource intensive program of work analysis and redesign (for example resourcing staff participation in a “boundary crossing laboratory” (Engeström, 2001)), which is not always feasible. However Activity Theory is useful as a way of conceptualising work (Kuutti, 1995; Kuutti & Arvonen, 1992).

An Activity theoretical approach properly has the expectation of participant activity and goal of structural change (Engeström, 2001). Inherent in Activity Theory is cycles of expansive learning – which requires vertical and horizontal processes of learning and development, confronting management viewpoints with everyday reality in the form of feedback (Engeström, 2001).

The Centre for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research at the University of Helsinki (http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/ ) undertakes a range of research in work, technology and organisations going through transformations. Recent examples of research from the Centre include investigating learning and network collaboration in product development (Miettinen, Lehenkari, & Tuunainen, 2008) and developing a collaborative care agreement tool and a new practice of negotiated care for patients with chronic illness (Kerosuo, 2006).

In Information Systems research, Activity Theory has been applied, among others, to studying computer-supported activities (Diaper & Lindgaard, 2008; Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997) and information seeking behaviour (Wilson, 2006), software requirements

elicitation (Martins & Daltrini, 1999) and information systems development and design (Boutet, 2008; Matthews, Rattenbury, & Carter, 2007; Uden, 2007; Uden & Helo, 2008).