Who Killed Rex? Tracing a Message through Three Kinds of Networks

Communicative Practices in Workplaces and the Professions: Cultural Perspectives on the Regulation of Discourse and Organizations

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 45-66

  Spinuzzi, Clay ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85144466428     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315224954-8     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

1. Bowker, G. (1987). A well ordered reality: Aspects of the development of Schlumberger, 1920-39. Social Studies of Science, 17, 611-655.
2. Callon, M., Law, J., and Rip, A. (1986). How to study the force of science. In M. Callon, J. Law, and A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 3-15). London: Macmillan.
3. Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working, and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
4. Engeström, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
5. Engeström, Y. (1996). Interobjectivity, ideality, and dialectics. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 259-265.
6. Engeström, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization at work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63-93.
7. Engeström, Y., and Escalante, V. (1996). Mundane tool or object of affection? The rise and fall of the Postal Buddy. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 325-374). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Häyrynen, Y.-P. (1999). Collapse, creation, and continuity in Europe: How do people change? In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 115-132). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Helle, M. (2000). Disturbances and contradictions as tools for understanding work in the newsroom. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, 81-114.
10. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Computer-mediated activity: Functional organs in social and developmental contexts. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 45-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Korpela, M., Mursu, A., and Soriyan, H. (2002). Information systems development as an activity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 111-128.
13. Korpela, M., Soriyan, H., and Olifokunbi, H. (2000). Disturbances and contradictions as tools for understanding work in the newsroom. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, 191-210.
14. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
15. Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Latour, B. (1996a). Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Latour, B. (1996b). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 228-251.
19. Latour, B. (1996c). Pursuing the discussion of interobjectivity with a few friends. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 266-289.
20. Latour, B. (1999a). On recalling ANT. In J. Law and J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor-network theory and after (pp. 15-25). Oxford: Blackwell.
21. Latour, B. (1999b). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law and J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor-network theory and after (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Blackwell.
24. Law, J. (2002). Aircraft stories: Decentering the object in technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
25. Letorsky, V. A. (1999). Activity theory in a new era. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 65-69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor-network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 170-195.
27. Miettinen, R., and Hasu, M. (2002). Articulating user needs in collaborative design: Towards an activity-theoretical approach. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 129-151.
28. Nardi, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and humancomputer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
30. Spasser, M. A. (2002). Realist activity theory for digital library evaluation: Conceptual framework and case study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, 81-110.
31. Spinuzzi, C. (2002). Toward integrating our research scope: A sociocultural field methodology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16, 3-32.
32. Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Star, S. L. (1995). Introduction. In S. L. Star (Ed.), Ecologies of knowledge: Work and politics in science and technology (pp. 1-35). Albany: SUNY Press.
34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.