Abstract
The paper discusses Sharrock's and Button's criticism of our attempt to use Habermas' communicative action theory to analyze group work platforms. We demonstrate that they misconstrue our goals of the paper, misinterpret our analysis of Habermas' action types, and misunderstand the concept of critical science. At the end we question the usefulness of these types of debates in furthering CSCW research.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cooke, M. (1994): Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas' Pragmatics. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967): Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lyytinen, K. (1986): Information Systems Development as Social Action: Framework and Critical Implications. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Lyytinen, K. (1992): Critical Theory and Information Systems. In M. Alvesson and H Willmott (eds.): Critical Management Studies. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.
Ngwenyama, O. and K. Lyytinen (1997): Groupware Environments as Action Constitutive Resources: A Social Action Framework for Analyzing Groupware Technologies. CSCW: The Journal of Collaborative Computing vol. 6,no. 1, pp. 71-93.
Sharrock, W. and G. Button (1997): On The Relevance of Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action For CSCW. CSCW: The Journal of Collaborative Computing vol. 6,no. 4, pp. 369-389.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lyytinen, K., Ngwenyama, O. Sharrock and Button ... and Much Ado about Nothing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 8, 285–293 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008720609782
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008720609782