Participatory Design Principles and Practices 1st Edition Douglas Schuler

Participatory Design Principles and Practices
1st Edition Douglas Schuler pdf download
https://ebookgate.com/product/participatory-design-principles-
and-practices-1st-edition-douglas-schuler/
Get Instant Ebook Downloads – Browse at https://ebookgate.com

Get Your Digital Files Instantly: PDF, ePub, MOBI and More
Quick Digital Downloads: PDF, ePub, MOBI and Other Formats
Electronics Principles and Applications 10th Edition
Charles A. Schuler
https://ebookgate.com/product/electronics-principles-and-
applications-10th-edition-charles-a-schuler/
Participatory Practices in Adult Education 1st Edition
Pat Campbell
https://ebookgate.com/product/participatory-practices-in-adult-
education-1st-edition-pat-campbell/
Progressive Dies Principles and Practices of Design and
Construction Second Edition Society Of Manufacturing
Engineers
https://ebookgate.com/product/progressive-dies-principles-and-
practices-of-design-and-construction-second-edition-society-of-
manufacturing-engineers/
Game audio programming principles and practices Somberg
https://ebookgate.com/product/game-audio-programming-principles-
and-practices-somberg/

Majority Decisions Principles and Practices Novak S.
https://ebookgate.com/product/majority-decisions-principles-and-
practices-novak-s/
Agile software development principles patterns and
practices Martin
https://ebookgate.com/product/agile-software-development-
principles-patterns-and-practices-martin/
Neuroimaging Genetics Principles and Practices 1st
Edition Kristin L. Bigos
https://ebookgate.com/product/neuroimaging-genetics-principles-
and-practices-1st-edition-kristin-l-bigos/
Case Study Research Principles and Practices 1st
Edition John Gerring
https://ebookgate.com/product/case-study-research-principles-and-
practices-1st-edition-john-gerring/
Agile Software Development Principles Patterns and
Practices Robert Martin
https://ebookgate.com/product/agile-software-development-
principles-patterns-and-practices-robert-martin/

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN:
Principles and Practices

PARTICIPATORY
DESIGN:
Principles and Practices
Edited by
Douglas Schuler
Aki Namioka
Boeing Computer Services
Computer Professionals fo r Social Responsibility
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is an imprint of the
Taylor & Francis Group, an inform a business

First Published by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
365 Broadway
Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642
Transferred to Digital Printing 2009 by CRC Press
6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487
270 Madison Ave, New York NY 10016
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Copyright 1993 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other
means without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Participatory design : Principles and practices / edited by
Douglas Schuler, Aki Namioka.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 0-8058-0951-1 (cloth). — ISBN 0-8058-0952-X (paper)
1. System design. 2. Human-computer interaction. I. Schuler,
Douglas. II. Namioka, Aki.
QA76.9.S88P38 1993
004.2' 1— dc20 92-27297
CIP
Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint
but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent.

Contents
Foreword
Lucy Suchman
Preface
PART I: CONTEXT
1. The Hazards of Leaving Out the Users
Ellen Bravo
2. Workers, Unions, and New Technology
Frank Emspak
3. A Design of One’s Own: Towards Participatory Design
in the United States
Joan Greenbaum
PART II: PRINCIPLES AND ISSUES
4. Scandinavian Design: On Participation and Skill
Pelle Ehn
5o Achieving Cooperative System Design: Shifting From a Product
to a Process Focus
Kaj Gronbeek, Jonathan Grudin,Susanne Bedker,
and Uam Bannon

Vi CONTENTS
6. Obstacles to Participatory Design in Large Product
Development Organizations
Jonathan Grudin
PART III: APPROACHES TO PARTICIPATORY DESIGN
7. Ethnographic Field Methods and Their Relation to Design
Jeanette Blomberg, Jean Giacomi,Andrea Mosher,
and Pat Swenton-Wall
8. Cooperative Design: Techniques and Experiences From the
Scandinavian Scene
Susanne Bodker, Kaj Grenbsek, and Morton Kyng
9. Contextual Inquiry: A Participatory Technique for System Design
Karen Holtzblatt and Sandra Jones
10. PICTIVE: Democratizing the Dynamics of the Design Session
Michael Muller
11. Reciprocal Evolution as a Strategy for Integrating Basic
Research, Design, and Studies of Work Practice
Christina Allen
PART IV: CASE STUDIES
12. The Participation of Users in Systems Design: An Account
of the Origin, Evolution, and Use of the ETHICS Method
Enid Mumford
13. Principles in Practice: Two Cases of Situated Participatory Design
Kari Thoresen
14. Small Changes: Starting a Participatory Design Process
by Giving Participants a Voice
Joan Greenbaum and Kim Halskov Madsen
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Author Index 303
Subject Index 309
123
157
177
211
239
257
271
289
299
99

Foreword
Lucy Suchm an
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
Computer systems development is invariably accompanied by the problem of
how to define requirements for the system’s functionality. From the developer’s
point-of-view, the problem has been viewed as one of somehow eliciting from
prospective users of a technology what it is that they need the technology to do
for them. At the same time this basic problem is often significantly displaced
from any specific site of technology-in-use. Imagined users, model users, or
surrogate users like the paid subjects of focus groups and operability tests stand
in for those who will actually work with the technology. And stereotypic scenar
ios or extrapolations from prevailing models of generic information processing
tasks take the place of an investigation of the specific activities in which a
technology will be involved. Even in those cases where development involves
extensive inquiry into relevant work activities, it is often persons other than those
who actually do the work who speak on their behalf.
Against such a background, this volume takes up the problem of how to
establish meaningful and productive interactions among those directly charged
with processes of technology design and use. It does so primarily from a de
signer’s point-of-view. That is to say, with the exception of contributions by
Ellen Bravo and Frank Emspak, the voices you find here are not those of workers
or system users but rather of researchers and developers concerned with bringing
their knowledge of technological possibilities to bear on the work of system
design. At the same time, what distinguishes this collection from many previous
writings on system development is its central and abiding concern for direct and
continuous interaction with those who are the ultimate arbiters of system ade
quacy; namely, those who will use the technology in their everyday lives and
work. A key concern throughout is the question of who does what to whom:
vii

Viii FOREWORD
whose interests are at stake, who initiates action and for what reason, who
defines the problem (or decides that there is one.)
Many of the contributions here are drawn from the first Participatory Design
Conference held in Seattle, Washington in the Spring of 1990. That conference
was initiated by members of a project on Computers in the Workplace within the
national nonprofit educational organization, Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR). As a member of CPSR and program chair for the confer
ence I had the pleasure of being part of a unique, grassroots effort to bring this
new perspective home to the research and development community within the
United States. The conference was, I think, a very special occasion for all
involved, distinguished by its deeply cooperative, nonbureaucratic, widely dis
tributed, and extremely effective organizing committee and by the spirit of ex
citement that characterized the conference itself.
The chapters in this collection follow in the footsteps of a small but growing
international community of scholars and practitioners of participatory systems
design. Many of the European originators of this approach are represented here
as well as some new and distinctively American approaches. At the same time,
the contributors vary significantly among themselves in their conceptualization
of the processes in which they are engaged. The goal for these writers is not to
offer up a general and unified ideology or methodology, but to report in a variety
of ways on the problems and possibilities for a more authentically cooperative
process of technology design. As a result the collection is characterized less by
any single theory or technique that is Participatory Design, as by a rich and
diverse set of perspectives and experiences that, despite their differences, share a
distinctive spirit and a direction. That spirit and direction is characterized by
concern with a more humane, creative, and effective relationship between those
involved in technology’s design and its use, and in that way between technology
and the human activities that provide technological systems with their reason for
being.
Participatory design makes explicit the critical, and inevitable, presence of
values in the system development process. To predominant values of product
quality and work productivity are added broadened participation and skill devel
opment. The premise is that these values are closely related; that the productive
ness of our work is tied to the extent of our involvement, and that product quality
is a matter of a technology’s support for the continually expanding and develop
ing work practices of skilled practitioners. Some readers may be surprised to find
the voice of organized labor represented here as well. Such representation is
critical in a discussion dominated to date by managerial and engineering perspec
tives. Until we become familiar with and take seriously each other’s concerns
there will be little hope for a mutually satisfactory future in the development of
work and technology.
Within this collection, the differences between European, Scandinavian, and
United States environments for system development are clear. At the same time,

FOREWORD ix
all of these countries participate actively in an international economic community
that shares many basic relations of business and working life. To the extent that
designers within the United States move ahead with a program of broadened
participation in technology development, contradictions will inevitably surface
between the rhetoric of user-centered design and employee empowerment, and
the realities of hierarchical systems of accountability and control. The point here
is not to reconcile these contradictions, but to give readers a sense for the range
of the issues. The goal of CPSR, the Participatory Design Conference, and the
volume that you now hold in your hands is to widen and deepen our discussion.
If as a reader you take away a more sophisticated appreciation for the many
meanings of participatory or cooperative systems design, including problems and
conflicts as well as prospects and shared values, this collection will have done its
job. As a product of our efforts, we hope this volume will be judged by its
contribution to a continuing process of discussion, debate, and exploration of
alternative approaches to computer systems design.

Preface
Participatory Design (PD) represents a new approach towards computer systems
design in which the people destined to use the system play a critical role in
designing it. The approach, pioneered in Scandinavia, is only now beginning to
get recognition in the United States. As Paul Czyzewski, Jeff Johnson, and Eric
Roberts note in the introduction to the Conference on Participatory Design (PDC
’90) proceedings, there are several fundamental ways in which PD differs from
traditional design.
It rejects the assumption that the goal of computerization is to automate the skills of
human workers, instead seeing it as an attempt to give workers better tools for
doing their jobs.
It assumes that the workers themselves are in the best position to determine how
to improve their work and their work life. In doing so, it turns the traditional
designer-user relationship on its head, viewing the users as the experts— the ones
with the most knowledge about what they do and what they need— and the de
signers as technical consultants.
It views the users’ perceptions of technology as being at least as important to
success as fact, and their feelings about technology as at least as important as what
they can do with it.
It views computers and computer-based applications not in isolation, but rather
in the context of a workplace; as processes rather than as products.
Participation stands in contrast to the cult of the specialist. In the specialist
model, an expert is sought out. The question is presented to the Expert who will
eventually produce the Answer. With this approach, those most affected by the
conclusion must sit idly by, waiting patiently for enlightenment. PD, of course,
xi

Xii PREFACE
demands active participation. PD, however, is not against expertise. There is no
reason or motivation to belittle the role of expertise. Specialized training and
experience, both technical and interpersonal, are important. In the participative
model, however, this special expertise becomes yet another resource to be drawn
on— not a source of unchallenged power and authority. A partnership between
implementers and users must be formed and both must take responsibility for the
success of the project.
During the course of editing this volume we have come across several disci
plines that prominently incorporate the idea of participation. These include par
ticipatory education, participatory architecture, and participatory economics. Al
though these other participative endeavors are not as familiar to us as
participatory design of computer systems, it is clear that these other approaches
are motivated by similar concerns as the PD practitioners in this book. The most
basic motivation is the idea of democracy. To be more concrete: People who are
affected by a decision or event should have an opportunity to influence it.
Participation is the key element in democracy. The other compelling idea is that
quality can improve with strong and effective participation of the people in
volved. User involvement and iteration are generally acknowledged to be more
critical to success in software design than adherence to conventional design
paradigms. Participation is essential to social interaction. It is also essential to
good design.
The material here has been chosen in order to illustrate the underlying philos
ophy and motivation as well as present enough information to begin applying PD
in design. We’ve also sought to transcend the Scandinavian context by offering
examples and advice that are pertinent to those of us in the United States. To best
present the material we have divided the volume into 5 sections. Context intro
duces the motivation for PD in the United States. Principles and Issues presents
theoretical issues as well as implementation issues. Approaches to Participatory
Design gives examples of Participatory Design inspired projects in the United
States. This section includes descriptions on how to conduct a project using
PD. Guidelines for Technique Development offers suggestions for how people
considering PD can introduce the concepts and ideas to the participants. Case
Studies talks about the results of PD projects, both in the United States and
Europe.
While it is impossible to offer a blueprint for PD, we hope that this volume
supplies at least some of the conceptual scaffolding.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the people who have contributed to this book,
knowing full well that this list is incomplete. The people listed below contributed

PREFACE xiii
to this book or to the Participatory Design Conference (PDC ’90) or in some
cases, to both.
First, we would like to thank Paul Czyzewski and Jeff Johnson who chaired
PDC ’90. We would also like to thank Lucy Suchman, who as the program chair
was largely responsible for the outstanding program at PDC ’90. Lucy invited
many of the people from Europe and the United States who have significantly
contributed to Participatory Design development. In addition, we appreciate her
thoughtful forward to this book.
We are very thankful for all the work that the contributors put into this book.
In particular we would like to thank Jonathan Grudin, who not only contributed
with two chapters but helped immeasurably in organizing the work, reviewing,
and providing an effective European liaison. We are also grateful to the following
people for providing invaluable support: Eric Blossom, Darlene Crane, Carolyn
Curtis, Marcia Derr, Danielle Fafchamps, Roger Hayes, Heather Holmback,
Lesley Kalmin, Dave Kadlecek, Dave Levinger, Max Palevsky, Steve Poltrock,
Eric Roberts, Lois Toback, and anonymous reviewers.
Finally, we would like to mention that the conference would have never taken
place without CPSR, the CPSR Workplace Project, and the Palo Alto and Seattle
CPSR chapters.
Doug Schuler
Aki Namioka

The Hazards of Leaving Out
the Users
Ellen Bravo
Milwaukee, Wl, 9to5,
National Association of Working Women
INVITED TALK
PARTICIPATORY DESIGN CONFERENCE
SEATTLE, 1990
At 9to5Awe’re very aware of the hazards of implementing automation without
involving the people who will use it. For many years we had a contest called “the
pettiest office procedure.” The winners one year were lawyers who had installed
beautiful new beige carpet in their office. Like the good lawyers they were, they
thought about the consequences. They wanted to keep the carpet unmarred, but their
secretaries’ chairs had rollers on the bottom that would create tracks on the rug.
So the lawyers decided— without consulting or even bothering to inform their
secretaries—to have the chairs nailed to the floor. Of course, when the secre
taries came to work the next day, they could not perform their job because they
had to roll from the typewriter to the computer to the telephone. This is a great
example of what happens when you omit the user. Not only does it incapacitate
the user, but think about what the carpet must have looked like when the lawyers
had to have the chairs unnailed.
I focus here on a very significant and large group of users, namely, clerical
workers. A lot of what I have to say can be extrapolated to apply to users at other
levels as well.
Clericals are usually omitted from every step of the technology process. They
are left out of decisions on how the technology should be introduced, how the
equipment should be designed, how the job should be designed. They are also
*9105 is an advocacy group for low income working women and families.
3

4 BRAVO
omitted from decisions about the application of software and systems. Leaving
out the users isn’t just undemocratic— it has serious consequences for worker
health, human rights, job satisfaction, and also for the work process and the
bottom line. When called upon for systems design, please consider carefully in
what kind of atmosphere and on what equipment these systems will be applied.
Let me begin by talking about health hazards. You’re all familiar with the
problems of eye strain and vision deterioration that users are experiencing. For
example, a 1987 study in Massachusetts looked at 1500 clericals employed at 38
worksites in six different industry groups (Rossignol et al., 1987). Researchers
found that 72% of the workers had daily or almost daily eyestrain, about 140%
more than people who weren’t working on VDT’s.
Many studies have shown an increase in temporary near-sightedness. You may
have seen an ad that asks what are the three most popular computer accessories.
The answer is Tylenol, Ben-Gay, and Visine. What we’re finding is that Visine
doesn’t eliminate temporary near-sightedness, just as Ben-Gay and Tylenol don’t
take other kinds of problems away. People are experiencing permanent changes
in their vision.
Dr. James Sheedy, Associate Professor at the University of California, Berke
ley school of Optometry and Chief of the VDT eye clinic there, said they are
seeing a higher than normal incidence of focusing problems among people in
their 20s and early 30s. Sheedy says many of these people are borderline: They
have slight problems that would never appear as symptoms except for the extra
load brought on by the way they use VDT’s. The problem is not inherent in the
technology but comes from the design of the workstations and the design of the
job. According to Dr. Sheedy, these problems may actually be causing a break
down in the focusing mechanism of the eye.
I could tell you horror story upon horror story of what happens to people who
work in improperly designed workstations. A California word processor de
scribed the various kinds of problems she had: the pain behind her eyes, the
headaches, the difficulty reviewing, the blurring when she looked at a distance.
She had eye therapy as prescribed by two optometrists— all of which she had to
pay for herself, because her employer did not acknowledge her problem as job
related. She eventually had to leave and go to a non-VDT-related secretarial job
at a cut in pay of $800 a month. Her story is not atypical.
Some problems occur as a direct result of the way the office is set up. I met a
women in a VDT training who described how her eyesight had deteriorated a lot
over the last 4 years. I asked her to describe what her office looks like. Manage
ment decided to set up her workspace as the model office of the organization.
They had beautiful wood walls put in with spotlights to highlight the wood.
There were hanging strobe lamps throughout the room. And in the middle was
the secretary’s desk with the VDT. Because her desk had no light on it, the
managers decided to train the spotlights directly on the VDT. In addition, they
bought her a spectacular wooden desk. She asked for a formica finish, but the

1. HAZARDS OF LEAVING OUT THE USERS 5
managers wanted it to be natural wood to go with the walls. They were afraid the
secretary would harm the wood, so they put a pane of glass over top of it. In sum,
this poor woman had to deal with reflections all over the place because no one
bothered to consider her needs.
The other thing that’s contributing to people’s eye strain and deterioration of
vision is having to read these ridiculous menus in order to pursue any operation
on the computer. There must be ways programmers could help to reduce eye
strain.
Another big area of health hazards for VDT users is musculo-skeletal strain.
We’ve all seen the pictures of splinted reporters. Once repetitive strain injuries,
or RSIs, started occurring among prestigious reporters and even some editors, the
big secret came out that RSI is a major problem among people who use comput
ers. A friend who worked in a public defender’s office told me how they just
plunked down the computers on regular desks. Within 6 months, 4 out of 16
clerical workers in that office had carpal tunnel syndrome.
Some of you should be familiar with this problem from 911 operators in
Seattle. When the operators went back to work with carpal tunnel syndrome,
some coworkers walked around with their hands curled up and ridiculed the
operators for having “puppy dog” syndrome. That’s how little recognition there
is for the seriousness of what can be not just painful, but a permanently disabling
condition resulting from the lack of user involvement in the office set-up and on
the job.
The main thing I want to discuss is what has been described as the chief
occupational hazard of the computer age, namely, stress. A 1987 study by Denise
R. Resko and Phyllis Kemaff Mansfield asked VDT workers and non-VDT
workers about a number of symptoms. The researchers controlled for family
stress and for job stress that was not connected to VDT’s. They found that VDT
work in and of itself was creating higher rates of stress symptoms: headaches,
gastrointestinal problems, menstrual problems, musculo-skeletal problems, etc.
(Resko & Mansfield, 1987).
Why is this happening? 9to5 did a study on stress back in 1984, which was the
first time that people really looked at stress among working women. Until then, it
had been considered mainly an executive, and therefore a White male, problem.
This study, which had 40,000 respondents, showed some very interesting results.
Although women managers were more likely to describe their jobs as being
very stressful, clerical workers were more likely to experience the health symp
toms of stress. Like the women managers or professionals, the clerical workers
had high levels of responsibilities—but unlike the managers, the clericals had
little control. It was this absence of control matched with the high level of
responsibility that created the stress. The singular condition that most contributed
to stress in the 9to5 survey was computer monitoring.
The same kind of results have been found in the Framingham heart studies.
When they looked at women clericals, they found they had twice the rate of heart

6 BRAVO
attacks as all other women workers; if you add in variables of low income and
children, the clericals had four times as many heart attacks. Why? They were
more likely to have an unsympathetic boss, a dead-end job, and no outlet for
their anger. In other words, they were more likely to have lack of control.
Considered next are five ways in which technology is adding to stress, then I
discuss what that really means in terms of human health and other costs.
First of all, lack of control comes from software designed without knowing or
thinking about the needs of the users. A librarian, for example, described a book
ordering procedure that originally entailed one form, which now has to be en
tered on three screens. A dues accounting system for a local union now requires
three steps for something that could be done in one step. The person who
programmed the system did talk to the staff before developing the program, but
did not check back with them afterwards to see how it was working and whether
there were any glitches that needed to be changed.
There should be a law: No one who hasn’t managed a database should be
allowed to program one. I call this law: “No one should be allowed to make
menus who hasn’t had to eat off them.” If you’ve ever entered data into a
database and had to manage it, you know that one of most common things you
have to deal with is duplications. You enter a name and then you find that person
was already on your list and you want to go back and delete the dup. Say you
have two ‘Gloria Williams’— if you delete ‘Gloria Williams,’ you have no
“Gloria Williams.’ You have to trick the computer: change one of the ‘Gloria
Williams’ to ‘Gloria Wilhelm’ and then delete ‘Gloria Wilhelm’ so that ‘Gloria
Williams’ will still be on your list. Why isn’t there a simple thing that says:
“dup, delete one”? The computer would know there are two; take out one, and
you have what you need.
Or how about this for a revolutionary idea. Shosana Zuboff, in her book, In
the Age of the Smart Machine, (1988), discusses the fear of computer operators
that they won’t be able to retrieve their data. Computers now work on the
principle that what you input is worthless until it reaches a certain stage, at which
point you tell the computer: This is now good enough; save it. It should be the
other way around: Everything I enter is worthwhile unless I tell you to the
contrary. Everything would automatically be saved. You would never have to
worry that an error would happen or that the system would go down before you
had saved your document. Before you could get out of the document, the screen
would say: Name this or type the word “delete.” Not: hit “y” or “n.” It’s much
easier to delete what you don’t need than to go back and re-key what you lost.
The greatest angst, as any one of you who’s ever done this know (and I see you
nodding your heads), is losing something that you composed from your head with
no notes. If the computer treated us as having daily brilliant thoughts, it would
save everything we did.
These were examples where the user needs are not understood. The second
area related to stress is where the user needs may have been understood, but we’ll
never know because we can’t understand the instructions either in the menus or

in the manual. Consider the “stop print” function in some database programs.
You make a mistake or you see that it’s not printing the way you want and you
want to kill it. So you quickly open the manual under “print” and look for
“stop” and there is nothing. So you look under “s” for “stop” and there is
nothing. So you look under “k” for “kill”; you even look under “a” for “annihi
late.” And there is nothing in the index that tells you how to make the darned
thing stop. Instead you have to pay $135 a year to some user network that you
call up when these things happen, and they tell you how to get the thing to stop
printing and how to start over again.
I think that there is very little malice involved in people who make these
instructions. The problem is people who don’t speak conversational English,
even though they are not foreign-born. They simply speak “tech-ese”; we need
an interpreter to understand them. It would obviously be a lot easier if the people
who used the system helped design the instructions.
A third area that contributes to stress is software designed without regard to
the impact on the user. An insurance clerk told 9to5 that every time the system
was about to go down, a message flashed on the screen saying: “fatal error.”
Even when you know that you, in fact, have not murdered anyone with your
keystroke, the stress effect on your heart and breathing are the same every time
the message comes up.
TWA has a new call distribution system. It has eliminated the 6 seconds that
you used to have between calls to finish scribbling your paper work, or take a sip
of water, or maybe crack your neck. There are now no seconds between calls.
Clearly, whoever designed the system had no idea what it would feel like the
instant you hang up to have to pick up the phone again.
The fourth area is software that is designed to manipulate or control the user.
On an episode of “L.A. Law” Roxanne led the secretaries in a walkout. One of
the issues they were up in arms about was VDT’s. They were concerned about
the hazards, but they were also really angry because their machine was flashing
messages saying, “My world is calm,” “My world is productive,” The secre
taries were incensed. Their world was not calm. They were trying very hard to be
productive. They found the messages patronizing and offensive. Nowadays soft
ware manufacturers boast about programs with this capability. Greentree Pub
lishing, for example, advertises a software package called “Subliminal Sug
gestion and Self-Hypnosis” with everything from feel-good messages to more
pointed commands like “work faster.”
But the fifth area related to stress is the most insidious, the fastest-growing,
and the most frightening: The computer is actually used to spy upon the user. We
tend to think of spying as something you do to the enemy. And we treat very
seriously people who spy on us as a country or who sell our secrets to other
countries. Yet we are promoting the use of technology as spy and the worker as
the enemy. Here the worker is no longer in any way a subject but becomes the
object of the system.
Imagine being a reporter writing your first draft. You’re just kind of spitting

8 BRAVO
out your thoughts. Suddenly you get a message on the screen from your editor:
“Bad lead. Start over.” PC Week Magazine advertises software with such ca
pability by telling the reader: “Look in on Sue’s computer screen. You monitor
her for a while. . . . In fact, Sue doesn’t even know you’re there.”
In a New York company that had 100 or more terminals in one room, someone
told us that occasionally this message would appear on her screen: “You’re not
working as fast as the person sitting next to you.” The computer is able to count
every keystroke that you enter, every minute that you are away from your desk to
use the bathroom. In fact, it is now not uncommon to have bathroom break
statistics posted, with the people who need the fewest potty breaks minutes at the
top of the list. This is going to give a whole new meaning to “wellness pro
gram,” a whole new set of exercises to learn to keep from going to the bathroom
outside of break.
Let me share some very serious examples. A lot of this happens in the airline
industry. On our job problem hotline we heard from an airline reservationist who
was suffering from severe mental stress, insomnia, and stress-related jaw
spasms. This is how she described her job: “The computer tracks your time on
the calls and it’s connected to a light on the tower. If the light goes out for more
than 14 seconds, they come on and listen and make nasty comments at you
through the earphone.”
Another sales agent described how workers punch into three different things:
the VDT; a keypad called the Collins; and headsets. Management tracks every
second of their working day. Daily and weekly printouts map the average call
length, the length of time between calls, the unplugged time, and sales perfor
mance. This woman said, “I get more grades in a month than my kids get in their
whole life from school.” Supervisors can listen into your calls not only with
customers but with your coworkers. And you get demerits if you have too much
unplugged time, if you didn’t sell enough rental cars, if you didn’t get enough
people to get their tickets in the mail, etc.
This woman, although she’d been there seven years and had a good work
performance every year until they implemented this system, was threatened with
losing her job because she had too much unplugged time—read: time in the
bathroom, time between calls. And she was very nervous, trying to get her
statistics up. Her supervisor noticed she didn’t look well and told her, “Take 10
minutes and pull yourself together.” And the woman said, “I didn’t know what
was happening to me, but I had a feeling it was going to take more than 10
minutes to take care of it.” In fact she had a nervous breakdown and was in
therapy for 8 months.
Practices like these have very serious consequences for our whole concept of
worker rights and the issue of worker health. A group in Massachusetts did a
survey on the consequences of computer monitoring. Sixty-two percent of the
people they interviewed did not know at the time they were hired that they were
going to be monitored on their job. Barbara Garson (1988) in The Electronic

Sweatshop gives an example of a woman who plugged in her headset, turned to a
coworker and said, “The doctor says it’s cancer,” then took her first call. An
hour later her supervisor called her in and said, “Is there any way we can help
you with your cancer?” The woman stormed out of the office, marched up to her
coworker and said, “How dare you tell them.” The coworker replied that she had
said nothing. That was the first time they realized that their private conversations
could be overheard by the same people that were listening in to their calls with
customers.
Almost one-quarter of the people who answered the survey in Massachusetts
said that their individual stats were publicly posted either by the week or by the
month. This misuse of computer systems, treating the user as the object rather
than the subject, has serious consequences for worker health and also for the
bottom line. A friend of mine did a study on the introduction of technology into
three different workplaces and what its impact was on users. She interviewed 161
clerical workers and asked them various questions about how automation had
been introduced. The two conditions that most correlated to a high rate of health
symptoms were too little training and too much down time— where the user, in
other words, had too little control to use the machine effectively.
There are lots of studies that show that productivity goes up 10-25% when
you create healthful and ergonomically designed workstations, and the opposite
is true when you don’t. Harley Shaiken has written about studies demonstrating
that computer monitoring is counterproductive. People say they use this tech
nology to improve productivity, but it doesn’t work. It makes you wonder if that
was ever the intent at all, or if in fact the intent, as Shaiken maintains, isn’t rather
to control and intimidate workers.
I’ve been sitting on a commission in New York on the skills for the workforce
2000. They have identified two different trends in management. One trend,
representing about 5 to 10% of businesses, is toward a high skilled, high value-
added workforce, which requires a new form of work organization— what you
refer to as “participatory design,” a team approach. But the majority of work
places instead have a low-skill, low-cost, high turnover view of management. If
you have that view of how to do business, obviously you need control in order to
get your workers to do the job because the attachment, loyalty, morale don’t exist
without investing in the workers.
We all know Big Brother didn’t work in Eastern Europe. Why is it taking
some people so long to figure out that it’s not going to work in the United States?
It’s going to take a lot of work on our part to see that it stops. In answer to the
question, “How do we get management to realize that these things need to
change?” , the most significant way is by creating the power among workers and
like-minded professionals to make them change.
You can also use arguments of the bottom line. Stress claims cost an average
of $11,000 as compared to $5,000 overall for worker compensation claims. The
National Institute of Mental Health said that 30 million Americans suffer mental

10 BRAVO
strain on the job that is workplace-related. A third of those people are under the
age of 30. More than half of them are female. We are talking about symptoms
that may affect a minority of workers, but they affect them in very significant
ways, both for the workers and for the workplace.
Clericals have been thought of as just users, just women, just secretaries. The
idea that they would have something to say about how the work should get done
is really a radical departure from business as usual in the United States. We also
have management that focuses on short-term rather than long-term cost effective
ness. It’s not really more expensive to do what we want to do, but it’s not the way
that American management on the whole thinks. And it’s clearly a question of
power.
Pay attention to this author who characterizes much of American management
style as the “military method of leadership.” The author asks why so many
American managers ignore the basic rights that are enshrined in the Declaration
of Independence and then gives this answer: “Simple. It requires the CEO’s and
the top VP’s to give up power. This is threatening to them.” The author of that
opinion piece, by the way, was not a radical 9to5 member, but the president of
Catholic Knights Insurance Society in Milwaukee, a man named Daniel
Steininger (1990). He also quotes some remarks from the man who started
quality control circles in Japan, to the effect that companies exist in order to
guarantee a good income to their employees and to see that they live a happy life;
and if they don’t carry out this function, they don’t deserve to exist.
Clearly, the only way to reverse this situation is to involve users in decision
making and that means some radical re-thinking about how jobs should be
designed. Variety and rotation of tasks, multiskill approaches have to be incorpo
rated into the actual job. There are people trying right now through various
approaches to make this happen. At Ohio Bell, for example, a collective bargain
ing agreement limited secret monitoring. It said management could take aggre
gate data, but could not use data on individuals. People have been trying litiga
tion with mixed results. There are four key cases, two of them in favor of the
worker, two of them in favor of management. At 9to5 we are looking for a test
case linking the issue of monitoring with the right to privacy. And legislation has
been introduced, the Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act, which provides
mainly for the right to know and privacy protections.
We need to see a much more interactive model, where users are involved at
each step of the way, where the locus of control shifts to include or mainly be in
the hands of the users, where everything starts from the needs of the workers. If
workers don’t yet have the ability to conceptualize what they need, they certainly
know a starting place. We need to figure out how to create the language and the
interaction so that the conceptualization can take place with the users playing an
integral part. We need to have designers experience work so that they know how
the application is going to be used and what it will mean.
I end by cautioning you about the concept of participatory design. The idea of

worker participation is being espoused by some people in top management, but I
suspect in very different ways. There is a big difference between making sug
gestions and making decisions; and there is a difference between having the right
to participate and having power. As you pursue the issue of participatory design,
I encourage you to make sure that users include clericals, and to make sure that
participation involves decision making.
Editor's Note
More information on the topic of computer monitoring and health and safety
issues can be found in two 9to5 publications: Stories of Mistrust and Manipula
tion: The Electronic Monitoring of the American Workforce, and VDT Syn
drome: The Physical and Mental Trauma of Computer Work. To order, call 9to5
at 216-566-9308.
REFERENCES
Garson, B. (1988). The electronic sweatshop: How computers are transforming the office of the
future into the factory of the past (p. 69). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Resko, D. R., & Mansfield, P.K. (1987). Video display terminals: How they affect the health of
clerical workers. American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, 35(7), 310-314.
Rossingnol, A. M. et al. (1987). Video display terminal use and reported health symptoms among
Massachusetts clerical workers. Journal of Occupation Medicine, 29(2), 112-118.
Steininger, D. (1990). Workers’ happiness should come first. Milwaukee Journal, March 23, p.
C l l .
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books.

Workers, Unions, and
New Technology
Frank Emspak
School for Workers University of Wisconsin—Extension
The best way to change the structure of American industry in a manner that
preserves productive employment, produces a better quality product, and restruc
tures the technology among more democratic lines is for users and designers to
find the means to talk with one another as equals and then actually effectuate a
decision. To be able to talk with each other as equals, to engage in a participatory
design process, we need to construct a support mechanism to enable the process.
In this chapter, we focus our discussion on how people in the factory see new
technologies being implemented. In effect, we focus on one class of user. We
emphasize metal working and factory work primarily because unionized workers
have been the most able to express concerns about the way their work is struc
tured. However, the issue of top down implementation and design of new tech
nologies is the same for office workers, hospital workers, as well as draftsmen,
planners, and large numbers of lab technicians.
Workers at all levels share the problems of the apportionment of skill, the
design of our tools and equipment (especially software). It is, therefore, apparent
that we need to forge links with all users and thus develop more global criteria for
the construction of software systems, factories, and the productive apparatus
including all office work and data processing.
Although unionized workers in the private sector have traditionally been the
ones to raise questions about technology implementation this may be changing.
Organized public sector workers may soon be in the best position of all to raise
questions of work organization, technology, and enhanced quality of service
resulting from meaningful worker input. The demand to cut costs in the public
sector may provide unionized workers with a means to push a worker-oriented
skills-based agenda. When employees have a chance to reorganize work and
13

14 EMSPAK
make efficient use of new technologies the organizational structure of the system
is altered reducing many expensive and not necessarily productive management
positions while maximizing expanded service delivery roles. As more and more
office workers get organized, particularly in the public sector, and express them
selves collectively, we anticipate increased discussion of job restructuring in the
office setting.
Throughout the chapter, I will use the terms worker and labor. Who is the
worker and what do we mean by labor in this essay? The worker is defined as the
nonprofessional work force. Labor tends to indicate blue collar organized labor.
Generally, the old terms blue and white collar, with the exception of profession
als, delineate this group of workers. The mental paradigm is the traditional
factory. In most such institutions the line between those who implement and
those who program and design is very clear.
Ultimately, any strategy that has as its objective bringing together conception
and execution will have to involve computer programmers and designers. At
some point, workers, programmers, and designers will have to begin to meet
together and figure out how to work collectively in order to bring about change
on the shop floor. In an addendum to this chapter, I suggest a model for a
technology design project which may provide a framework for cooperation.
However, the chapter itself is more limited. My goal is simply to discuss how
technology is viewed looking up from the bottom, and suggest steps that orga
nized labor can take, in the immediate future, to enhance its ability to represent
the work force.
A FAMILIAR STORY
The story is familiar. Workers notice some new managers and engineers in the
work place. People are measuring something. All of sudden new equipment or
computer terminals come in. Some individuals are assigned to the new system—
but no one explains how the new system really works. Different jobs are cre
ated—but it seems that management keeps the interesting work— even though
workers used to do it. Older workers aren’t trained on the equipment. All of a
sudden they aren’t flexible enough and don’t know enough. New people usually
brought in out of seniority are put on the job.
The union leadership has been told some new equipment is coming, but they
have not been told much about its capabilities. The leadership is uneasy— and so
are the workers. But after a few weeks of talking with management about the
effects the new equipment may have on the work force, only some details like
shift assignment and some bumping rights are straightened out. There is no
discussion about the new jobs and management is still doing the work. No one
feels quite right. . . There is a sense of loss.
Often the introduction of new machines or office procedures is accompanied

2. WORKERS, UNIONS, AND NEW TECHNOLOGY 15
by a veiled threat. Either do it the new way or no new investment. In these times
of plant relocations and shut downs only a fool would argue about how invest
ments are made— at least so the story goes.
Besides— who knows if there is a better way to put in new technology. After
all, don’t the engineers and management know best?
The story does not end yet, although the official role of the union usually stops
after the conclusion of the first flurry of discussion about new means and meth
ods. But time goes on and the work force including management tries to get used
to the new equipment. To a degree it becomes part of the landscape.
But the equipment is not working too well. Even after a few months the new
system is not living up to expectations. Start up costs are high. Problems happen
all the time. Quality problems show up and the company is still in trouble—
threatening their own existence as well as our jobs.
Is There Another Way?
There are other ways of implementing technological change that allow workers
to enjoy the promise of the new technologies. To estimate if those ways can be of
use to American workers we must first understand what technology is and who
actually implements it.
What is Technology?
A good definition of technology is the means and methods through which we as a
society produce the substance of our existence. What does that mean? There are
old tools, like a shovel and new tools like a robot. There are old sources of
energy like steam and new sources of energy like electricity. Materials are also
part of technology. Old materials like cast iron and new materials like fiber
optics. Then there are techniques of production—old, like weaving, and new as
x-ray lithography for producing micro chips. Finally, there is the organization of
work—craft work is an old form of organization, the assembly line is newer, and
various computer aided flexible manufacturing systems are the newest.1
WHO IMPLEMENTS THE TECHNOLOGY?
In spite of massive changes in the technical base of our factories and offices it is
still the worker who implements the technology. As yet there is no substitute. On
the surface there appears to be a contradiction between the tremendous invest
ment in sophisticated equipment and its use by relatively unskilled workers.
1Since the beginning of the production of goods, there has been an old technology and a new
technology. The pace of change, however, has altered.

16 EMSPAK
Sometimes this contradiction expresses itself as the new jobs are more boring and
less creative than the old. However, the fact remains that people are needed. And
because people implement even the most costly and modem technical system
there is a way out of the seemingly downward spiral of job displacement, poor
quality, and excessive costs associated with the introduction of new technology.
The way out derives from the concept that most working people have the same
aspirations as everyone else. Increasingly, working people and their organiza
tions are coming to realize that the technologies that are being implemented in
the work place are not immutable and can be changed. The introduction of new
technology is an opportunity for labor to regain the initiative in regards to
management over job content, skill, wages and benefits.2
TECHNOLOGY: THE PACE OF CHANGE
For about 50 years from 1920 to 1970, the technology in industry changed
incrementally and relatively slowly compared to the last 10 years. The basic job
structure was designed by F. W. Taylor, who proposed reducing each individual
job to its smallest least skilled portion as a means of achieving management
control and hence efficiency.
Over time the basic trend in work organization was to separate conception
from execution. This reached its most capital intensive form in the automobile
industry although much of the so called women's work in light manufacturing,
and almost all office work is organized in the same manner. In the early 1950s,
the first numerically controlled machines were designed. The Numerically Con
trolled (NC) machine tool provided a means to further separate execution from
conception. At that time some firms specifically identified deskilling workers to
reduce control over production as one driver behind the development of new
technologies— specifically the numerically controlled machine tools.
Starting in the 70s the technological pace of change picked up. Not only did
technique change but the actual job structures changed as well. The organization
of work changed. In the machine trades the programmer increasingly decided on
to speeds, feeds, and tool sequence. These functions had been in the heads of the
machinists. In large manufacturing plants fairly rigid production control systems
like Materials Resource Planning (MRP) displaced the clerks who had tradi
2But in order to take advantage of this opportunity working people need some ingredients which
have previously been missing in a view of technology. First, working men and women, and our
unions, need to understand the new technologies with the same precision that we understood the older
technologies. Second, from that understanding workers need to project a vision of what is possible.
Above all working people need to regain and build on their self-confidence. The basic building block
of our self-confidence is the pride which most workers share in producing a good piece of work.

tionally specialized in production control functions. To a greater and greater
degree people became monitors rather than doers.
Over the years the response of organized labor to issues of technology has
centered on the effects of technology, not its design. When industrial unions
organized themselves in the 1930s the structure of work was not challenged by
the CIO and, by and large, was not an issue. By the mid 1970s the pace of
technological change was fast enough so that many union staff people, full time
officers, and workers with seniority active in the union but not affected by the
new jobs lost their understanding of the actual way in which work was per
formed. The net result was that unlike European unions, which are more in
volved in issues of job content, American unions until recently did not see this as
a major issue.
THE BARGAINING PROCESS:
DOES IT FIT THE RAPIDLY CHANGING CONDITIONS?
The essential outlines of modem collective bargaining became law 50 years ago.
In the bare essentials industrial unions agreed to negotiate about the effects of the
technologies. The legal structure that regulates unions specifically restricts
unions from having a right to bargain on “means and methods.” (Management
may agree to discuss the issue, but it is not a mandatory subject for the purpose of
collective bargaining.)
Management has the right to choose tools, energy forms, techniques, and
organization of work. Unions negotiate primarily concerning compensation—
including benefits. An important exception has been the increased activity re
garding health and safety effects of the machines and office equipment. One
group of unions—the craft unions maintained their practice of intervening con
cerning means and methods. They have been able to continue this tradition
through the control of training, especially apprenticeship training.
This bargaining structure no longer meets the needs of many workers. Bar
gaining that is limited to wages, hours, and a narrow definition of working
conditions in a rapidly changing technological world fails to ensure a better
standard of living for most workers. However, what choices do workers have?
Having to change the bargaining system in order to negotiate concerning tech
nology hardly seems like an opportunity. Labor law is fossilized and admin
istrative law mechanisms are controlled by business interests seemingly dedi
cated to marginalizing unions. But there are forces in the manufacturing world
that recognize change must occur.
FORCES FOR CHANGE
If only union members were negatively affected, then the chances for reform of
the labor relations structure would be very poor. Research and experience indi
cate, however, that it is also true that the modem equipment does not work as

18 EMSPAK
effectively, quickly, and at as high a quality as possible without the in depth and
voluntary participation of the work force. Although management resists many
changes that limit its authority, American firms also have to face competitive
pressures abroad. Successful competitors have been those industries that have
been more willing to change the scope of collective bargaining and bring labor to
one degree or another into the process of determining means and methods.
American management may not like it but if faced with a determined well
organized union projecting a program of how to get things done better, bit by bit
the door to more innovative and inclusive agreements would be opened.
What do we Need to Know?
The best negotiating committees are formed by members who understand the
contract and who also have a detailed knowledge of the equipment they work
with. They can use this knowledge to bargain effectively. When that knowledge
is diluted or removed from the purview of the union its ability to bargain intel
ligently on any issue is reduced.
Understanding technology means a basic understanding of the work process
and its potential. Unions, and workers in general, need to know what software is
and how it can be programmed. Working people need to know that software can
be redesigned so that workers on the shop floor can program it. Users need to
know if one way information systems often found in offices are truly one-way or
if they can be reconfigured for increased operator interface.
Part of our understanding must revolve around the issue of worker interven
tion. One must know how flexible the systems are— and as part of that one must
know with what precision systems are capable of monitoring work.
Understanding the production processes, including work flow, scheduling,
and the operation of the firm’s information system allows the local union to
bargain effectively because it can control production. By understanding the real
position of the worker in the firm’s productive apparatus the union membership
can plan for the future. For example, if the specific jobs in question are transitory
due to technological change, for example, key punch operators, then emphasis
has to be put on training and alternative job paths for those workers. Likewise, as
working people better understand how new technologies impede or expedite the
transfer of production to non union areas labor’s legislative and bargaining objec
tives can be altered to match those dangers more precisely.
TECHNOLOGY IS NOT A SEPARATE ISSUE
Technology bargaining is not a separate issue from other parts of the contract. It
should not be treated as one item on a laundry list of items. The companies
understand that the design and implementation of means of production are central

to the work place and so should unions. Firms usually design their bargaining
strategy based on how they want their equipment used and don’t treat technology
as a separate issue. Neither should unions.
Technology bargaining could be called bargaining over means and methods.
Trade unionists can use such bargaining as a way to project a vision of the
workplace as a means of motivating people to do something about it. Very few
people get all excited about a grievance or some technical change in the contract.
But there is much more interest when unions start talking about more general
ideas including adding some skill and control to the workplace.
The Workers Role in Job Design
What should workers do if their firm is willing to negotiate the design of a
new system? The first task is to create a list of design criteria. These criteria
should reflect the reality that the firm must be profitable. Thought must be given
to criteria that need to be added for the system to maintain employment. Criteria
need to be defined which can enhance skills. The second task is to reject criteria
based only bn minimizing jobs and employment. If the firm is to increase market
share, produce better, etc., then overall costs have to decrease. In fact, based on
our earlier criteria, costs of the hourly wage for our members may go up in
absolute terms— although maybe not as a percentage of the cost of production.
However, overall costs of production may go down as quality improves and as
the firm is able to respond more quickly to problems, as a result of increased skill
and flexibility within the work force.
At this point the problem is not a technical one. It is a political, technical, and
economic one. Workers have to convince management to bargain about how they
want to run the enterprise. Can this be accomplished?
The situation, legally, is that management has a technology rights clause.
They also have a right to do everything else clause. These clauses are called a
management rights clause. It is unlikely that a union can insist that this be
dropped as a precondition for discussions. But if workers are successful in
getting management to the table then in the next round of formal contract nego
tiations they should consider trying to limit this clause.
In order for workers to get management to talk, there are two tracks that can
be pursued at the same time. The first track challenges management as to their
overall strategy. In other words ascertain if they just want to reduce labor costs or
do they want to increase productivity and quality?
In order to challenge management workers need to have time. Part of negotiat
ing about technology is to have time to analyze the new systems. It is important
to insist on formal, early notification of any impending changes, along with the
company’s estimate of the impact on the work force. Meanwhile, it is also
important for workers and the union, using their own sources, to have an inde
pendent estimate of the expected effects of the new systems on employment and
skill.

20 EMSPAK
Workers can pursue another track too. They can learn how the office or plant
works. A union local needs to have some ideas (even if they are not completely
right) as to how to run the enterprise better. It could be, for example, more
training; it could be worker programmable equipment; it could be another dis
patch system or production control system. In other words working people col
lectively have to know as much about the plant as individual workers know about
their job. Jobs are too important to leave it up to management.
What happens if that strategy idea does not work? At least by pursuing track
one workers probably know what the company is going to do. If a union directly
offers management a willingness to discuss change and better ways to produce
something, management in generally divested of its ability to go to the union
members and accuse the union of standing in the way of progress.
If the union has done its work, it has used management’s answers combined
with its own research to provide the membership with good reasons for why the
union didn’t buy the company’s approach. Hopefully, due to the cohesiveness of
the union and its understanding of the productive process, it may convince the
firm to rethink its position and bargain.
Assuming that a firm is willing to bargain, how does one use the ideas of
participatory design to save jobs or enhance skill? At this point the task may be
more technically difficult, but a union has made an important organizational
gain. We have to put the union’s criteria for machine design into practice.
Often a firm has already defined its design objectives, and may be ready to
order specific equipment. It is in the union’s interest to independently evaluate
the system or machines based on the union’s criteria as well as the firm’s.
The next step is to investigate alternatives. There are several approaches to
this step. Three of them are:
1. Use the resources of the international union to get an idea of what type of
machines or systems are on the market, or how other locals have dealt with the
same problem;
2. At the company’s expense visit machine tool or system designers, local
technical universities, etc. and compare equipment;
3. Work with professionals with expertise in human factors to make sure you
understand the alternatives.
What work are we really doing by searching for alternatives is acquiring
equality of knowledge. If one is ignorant of what alternatives are possible, then it
will be impossible to win them. The central point in making ideas into reality is
knowledge.
The Center for Applied Technology
There have been some limited examples of worker participation in designing
production systems. As a means to encourage modernization of the manufactur
ing base, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts organized a project called the

Center for Applied Technology (CAT). One means that the center employed to
bring about change in the work place was to encourage the formation of joint
worker management teams to solve production and quality problems.
The experience of CAT showed that it is not necessary to have all the an
swers—but only necessary to pose alternative ideas of manufacture. CAT
reached people in management who thought about production and was able to
help them organize joint worker-management projects that discussed design and
implementation issues.
The CAT succeeded in going through all the steps noted above at the Pneu
matic Scale company. Local 444 of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store
Workers Union originally interested the firm in the CAT program and consis
tently encouraged the firm to stay involved in the project. The firm employs
about 350 people engaged in the machining of parts and their assembly into
packaging machinery, mostly container cappers and fillers. Customers include
Proctor and Gamble and Lever Brothers.
CAT assisted in organizing a team including the president of the local, the
vice president, the manager of industrial relations, and the manager of produc
tion to work out details. Every so often all the top management of the firm would
come for a report and agree, disagree, or in consultation with CAT and the union,
modify the proposals. Then management would implement.
The most significant part of the program was the union’s role as initiator. It
came to the CAT and brought management with it. The union insisted on re
vamping the training. The union pushed for changes in production. Noteworthy
aspects of this approach are the equality of knowledge, the scope of the decisions
that the team was allowed to make, and the fact that the union was represented in
its own right.
THE VISION
A new approach that has proven its value is skills based automation. Another
way of saying the same thing is user driven design. Both concepts take as their
starting point that the user is the worker—not just the management. Generally
speaking, when the machine tool and computer people talk about users they
combine the buyers (management) with the actual user (workers). Their designs
conform to the financial and organizational needs of the firm first, not neces
sarily to the needs of the production people. Taking it one step further, user
driven design places the needs and abilities of the worker at center stage along
with the other needs of the firm.
Skills based automation as a goal and negotiating tool allows working people
to take the offensive in regards to technology implementation. It also allows
organized labor to move off the defensive in the discussion of productivity,
competitiveness, and training. It allows labor to take the high ground when it

22 EMSPAK
comes to flexibility. The most skilled workers are the most flexible. A skills
based conception of work enables working people to devise a manufacturing
system that produces a quality product in a cost effective, efficient manner.
Can Organized Labor Project a Vision of Change in the
Interests of all Workers?
The ability of the labor movement to defend all workers by projecting a positive
vision is a necessity if the labor movement is to break out of the isolation
imposed on it by the corporations. A skills based view of work allows organized
labor to set the agenda and defend the interests of all working men and women,
not just a few affected by a specific process. Both professionals and nonprofes
sional workers are interested in jobs that include a continuous self-improvement
factor and during the course of the day combine physical and nonphysical ele
ments. Most people want jobs that offer some creativity and responsibility.
Almost all working people want to have some say in their pace of work and not
be machine paced or computer driven.
Working people need to be able to recognize that technology is not some sort
of force outside of their lives, but a socially determined system. Like any other
socially determined system a technical system reflects certain values and as
sumptions. These values and assumptions may favor management at the expense
of workers. Most unions and working people understand this when it comes to
questions of health and safety. Raising the issues of design and implementation is
not much different than raising issues regarding safety and health.
The labor movement has at its disposal a great reservoir of information regard
ing new technologies. This knowledge resides in the membership of the unions
and in the many unorganized working men and women who would be only too
glad to share their knowledge and expertise with their fellow workers. It is
probably accurate to say that the knowledge potential of the trade union move
ment far surpasses the information available to management. So the basic ingre
dient for participatory design knowledge is present. The only ingredient lacking
for the moment is the vision to use it.
Addendum
It is not enough to suggest that working people can and must participate in
designing the technologies used at work. We must outline the forms within which
this process can take place. The School for Workers, a program of the Extension,
University of Wisconsin, has proposed a technology assessment and design
project in the fine cabinet industry. The model has the potential of being applied
in many industries.
The project can encourage meaningful participation by workers, engineers,
and designers, as well as progressive firms in the industry. Although we in the

United States do not have the institutional support that could assist participatory
design efforts— as do our European counterparts, we think their model has a
great deal of relevance. Thus any resemblance between the project we suggest
and Scandinavian participatory design ideas is deliberate, and we thank our
colleagues abroad for their pioneering work.
PROPOSAL
Skill Based Automation
For the Fine Cabinet Making Industry
Objective
The application of modem computer aided wood working equipment and skill to
the fine cabinet making industry will allow the industry to manufacture high
quality, one-of-a-kind products at competitive costs. The results will include an
expansion of the industry while the quality and variety associated with the
industry is enhanced.
The skill composition of the work force will also change. Of necessity there
will be a process wherein the traditional wood working skills will be combined
with newer skills associated with flexible computer aided manufacturing. The
result will be that an enterprise will have a work force that combines the new and
the old at a higher level.
The project will demonstrate in a practical fashion that a combination of
traditional cabinet making skills combined with flexible automation can:
1. produce high quality fine cabinetry at a reasonable cost;
2. preserve and enhance the skills associated with the trade;
3. indicate the value of a union environment as opposed to a nonunion
environment.
Phase One
Project Organization. The Carpenters Union and the University of Wiscon
sin School for Workers will organize a project leadership body. The body will
include individuals from the Carpenters Union national staff, working cabinet
makers, local officials, and faculty from the school. Members from the industry
will also be asked to participate—either directly or as part of cooperative agree
ments that exist between the Carpenters and the owners. The chairman will be
from the Carpenters Union and the cochairman will be from the School for
Workers. It is understood that the committee will be answerable to the Carpenters
Union in all matters.

24 EMSPAK
Duties of the Committees. The committee will direct the skill based automa
tion project as defined below. The committee will also evaluate the results of the
project, set criteria that direct the design of machinery and software, and in
general oversee the project in all its detail and complexity.
A brief outline of Phase One follows.
1. Organize a project leadership committee. The School for Workers will
assist in developing a joint committee consisting of Union and management
representatives.
2. Convene the committee. Assess whether current problems in communica
tions exist between the worker (union) and management representatives, using
the facilitation services of the School for Workers.
The School will provide the necessary training in problem solving to enable
the participants to work together on a different and positive basis.
3. Develop goalsfor the project. The School will assist the body in reaching
a consensus as to the specific goals of the project. The committee will jointly
draft the objectives and implementation strategy.
4. Educate the committee. The School will provide the committee with a full
explanation of the concepts of skill based, flexible automation. In addition, we
will review the current technologies available to the cabinet making industry.
5. Define criteria. Once our education is complete the committee will define
the criteria by which we will judge the hardware and software available for use in
our industry.
6. Identify skills. The committee will identify key management and working
skills, essential for making best use of the technologies.
7. Identify resources. The committee will identify engineers, software de
signers, and machine tool manufacturers who are best able to advance the objec
tives outlined in the project.
Phase Two
Two distinct problems must be addressed if we are to use new, programmable
machinery to produce fine cabinetry. First, appropriate hardware must be identi
fied, or if unavailable on the market such hardware must be designed. Second,
the best software that governs the tool movements must be identified. If software
that matches the reasoning process of the cabinet maker is not presently on the
market, we must design and produce the software.

1. Hardware Identification. A survey of existing wood working equipment
will be conducted by the committee or its designee. Equipment presently in use
in the industry will be rated according to criteria developed by a Carpenters
Union study committee.
2. Software Identification. A survey of exiting software will be conducted
by the committee or its designee. Software presently in use in the industry, in this
country and abroad will be evaluated based on the criteria developed by the
committee. While members of the committee may be designated to participate,
engineers or other persons with expertise including working cabinet makes, will
also be solicited to identify needed software.
Phase Two will be complete when the software and hardware is selected and
rated according to our criteria.
Phase Three: New Design
In all probability the evaluation phase will discover that existing designs,
especially software designs, do not match the needs of the work force, or of the
industry. If such is the case the committee will evaluate the costs and benefits of
modifying existing software. If our analysis is positive the committee will com
mission the design of new software to meet our needs.
Phase Four: Implementation
The committee will arrange for a demonstration project of the hardware and
software defined above.
The committee will direct an evaluation of impediments to the organization of
cabinet making using the production system that we as a committee have identi
fied. Our evaluation will include an assessment of the application of human and
management resources to the changed work place. Based on the findings of that
evaluation, appropriate educational and organizational steps will be implemented
in shops that are willing to be used, in whole or in part, as implementation sites.
Phase Five: Dissemination
The results of each phase will be disseminated to participants as soon as
practical.
Editor's Note
Frank Emspak is an assistant professor in the School for Workers, University of
Wisconsin Continuing Education Extension, Madison Wisconsin. Prior to join

26 EMSPAK
ing the School, he was project Director of the Center for Applied Technology, a
state funded program headquartered in Boston MA. Before coming to CAT, Dr.
Emspak was a machinist employed by the General Electric Company,
Wilmington MA. While employed at GE, Dr. Emspak served on the Executive
Board of his local union IUE Local 201 (AFL-CIO) for 8 years.
FURTHER READING
Ahlin, J., & Svensson, L. (1980). New technology in mechanical engineering industry: How can
workers gain control? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1, 487-521.
Ashford, N., & Ayers, C. (1987). Changes and opportunities in the environment for technology
bargaining. Notre Dame Law Review, 62(5), 810-858.
Bernard, E. (1987). A union course on new technologies, 14, 3-4 , University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada.
Brodner, P. (1985, September). Qualification based production— The superior choice to the “un
manned factory.” Preprintfrom the 2nd IFAC Conference on Analysis, Design, and Evaluation of
Man Machine Systems. Varese, Italy.
Cooley, M. (1989). European competitiveness in the 21st century: Integration of work, culture and
technology. FAST Action Program of Human Work in Advanced Technical Environments (Final
Draft Report 27), June 1989.
Martin, T., & Ulrich, E., & Wamecke, H. J. (1987, July). Preprints. 10th World Congress on
Automatic Control. Munich, Germany.

3A Design of One's Own:
Towards Participatory Design
in the United States
Joan Greenbaum
La Guardia College, City University of New York
The road toward participatory design in the United States has been under con
struction for some time now. Certainly by the middle part of the 1980s as most
large companies grappled with the proliferation of PCs on employees desks, it
was becoming clear that users of computer services needed more of a voice in the
type of computer services they were receiving. This chapter lays out some of the
groundwork that has been leading to more user-centered system design, and
explains how this can be used as a bridge toward building more participation into
the system development process. Several issues emerge here. The first issue is
that user-centered design, while helping to pave the way towards participatory
design, is not participatory in and of itself. The second issue addresses the
differences between what has come to be known as the Scandinavian approach to
design and the way participatory design in the US is emerging and is likely to
develop. The third issue is that while participatory design both requires and
fosters workplace democracy, participation in the design process may not neces
sarily lead to workplace democracy. In fact, a central point of this chapter is to
illustrate the ways that, I believe, American design needs to take on its own home
grown characteristics and to paraphrase Virginia Woolf, become a design of
one’s own. As the chapters in this book point out, participatory design is many
things to many people. Yet there is a remarkable core to the ideas which have
been built on common ground. Among the elements in the common core, are the
ideas that: Computer applications need to be better suited to the actual skills and
working practices of the people using the systems; that work is a social activity
involving the interaction of many groups of people; and that barriers between
technical specialists and people using computer applications need to be broken
down in order to build effective communication during the design process.
27

28 GREENBAUM
Participatory design implies that workers as users of computer products
should take part in the decisions that affect the system and the way it is designed
and used. Because technology is not developed in isolation, participation in
decisions about technology also involves decisions about work content and job
design. Seen in this broader context participatory computer system design needs
to be part of an integrated design that looks at work organization, job content,
and the way technology is used to support these activities. This integrated design
process also implies that system developers as technical specialists need to re
focus their energies so that they can learn to rely on the expertise of the workers.
System developers in an integrated and participatory environment would then
take part in playing active roles in fostering and enabling people to use their
knowledge to make decisions. But the step between fostering participation and
enabling decision making is grounded in a question of power.
POWER SHIFTS: CONTROLLING THE SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Participatory design represents a potential break with traditional approaches to
system development. The break happens when we recognize that full and active
participation of users as workers implies a shift in power relations within com
panies. To address this issue more closely the chapter focuses on Information
Systems (IS) within large organizations, particularly Management Information
Systems (MIS). In the development of MIS applications the contradictions be
tween the roles of system developer as management consultant and system devel
oper as spokesperson or catalyst for user groups become quite clear. System
analysts, whether they are employed by an organization ordering a system or
work as outside consultants to a project, are usually hired by management to
respond to a set of management defined objectives. Within the American con
text, the idea of a system analyst acting as an advocate for user rights is not yet an
issue on the table of possibilities.1
This means that when system developers take an active role helping users
become involved in defining and using computer systems they are moving into
uncharted waters. The role of system analyst as management consultant or man
agement technical specialist comes into conflict with that of system analyst as
System analysts work in a variety of arrangements including work as in-house staff and outside
consultants. Their work also varies depending on the extent of interaction they have with users (i.e.,
products for software houses where users are often not directly involved in the development process,
or user-specific applications in application areas like banks). The point here is that regardless of the
type of work done, most developers are employed by management to carry out management goals.
This chapter focuses on MIS applications, for discussion of product development organization see J.
Grudin in this volume.

3. PARTICIPATORY DESIGN IN THE UNITED STATES 29
user-facilitator. For participatory design to work within the unstated assumptions
of the American corporate world, these conflicting roles need to be spelled out
and clarified. Movement from involving users in design to full participatory
design means encroaching on some decisions that have traditionally been consid
ered the prerogative of management. It also means looking at the concept of the
integrated design of work organization, decision making, and computer support.
In a sense participatory design opens up Pandora’s box, for the questions we need
to ask affect the whole organization and the way decisions are made within it.
To better understand this situation a brief look at the history of system devel
opment is useful. Following World War II some of the early methods and pro
cedures for system development came from the field of Operations Research
(OR). OR-based procedures emphasized quantitative reasoning in order to facili
tate coding complex programs. In the 1950s as software for large mainframe
computer systems was laboriously cranked out, practices from the newly emerg
ing field of Management Science also began to frame the boundaries of system
development field (see Greenbaum, 1979).
The merging of Operations Research and Management Science was not an
accidental marriage. In the early days software development was extremely labor
intensive and prone to error. System analysis and design emerged as a series of
techniques that could place clear-cut standards on the way software was to be
produced, including contractual arrangements to control the stages of develop
ment. Thus the system life cycle was defined as a series of linear steps from
feasibility study through implementation and documentation, which could be
seen by MIS departments as isolated project parts to be defined, administered
and controlled. Interpreting this from the labor process perspective of Braver-
man’s (1974) book on Labor and Monopoly Capital, one could say that computer
systems were in fact designed to further divide workers and in many cases take
away the skills that they had (Greenbaum, 1979, Kraft, 1977). Viewed in this
way the system development process has not only excluded users from the
development of systems, but has done so by design (Noble 1977).
The steps in the traditional life cycle approach were originally developed to
control large scale projects yet the emphasis on control has remained a cor
nerstone of the profession. So much so, in fact, that if one were to read through
the leading textbooks on System Analysis and Design today one would still find
that the themes of dividing the project into stages and controlling each stage
continue to dominate the material. Although newer textbooks introduce chapters
on prototyping and inject some sections on the ‘human factor’, most material still
focuses on procedures for meeting management needs for control over project
costs time-frame requirements. In short, how the system might suit the needs of
people working within the organization has been secondary to management
requirements for control over the project.
As early as the 1960s some observers began to argue that the life cycle
approach and formal procedures were unresponsive to human needs. In 1965,

30 GREENBAUM
Robert Boguslaw asserted that system developers were “concerned with neither
souls nor stomachs,” resulting in the fact that “People problems are left to the
after-the-fact efforts of social scientists” (p.3). Today, close to 30 years after
Boguslaw’s warning, the tools and techniques taught to new system developers
still follow the procedures for control outlined in the textbooks. In practice, the
patterns of behavior among system developers and managers, for the most part,
mirror the textbook methodology, or at least try to sound as if they do (see
Friedman, 1989). System Analysis and Design as practiced within the confines
of most Management Information Systems (MIS) departments looks a lot like
general management practices with some specific techniques thrown in to ac
count for the difficulty of controlling software projects.
Yet over the last 30 years the pages of management and system journals have
been peppered with articles bemoaning the fact that so many systems don’t work
or fail to do things that both managers and users expect them to do. In addition to
critiques within the system field, social scientists who have studied people at
work point out that many computer systems adversely affect the performance of
the workers using them. Most work places seem to have stories that confirm
these findings— stories about workers having to do extra tasks just to make the
data fit the system or about people spending long hours trying to print out letters
on printers that are incompatible with their work stations.
General dissatisfaction about workplace systems seemed to have reached a
feverish peak in the mid 1980s when MIS departments began to complain more
loudly about taking the blame for systems that did not work (Friedman, 1989).
Some changes that occurred during the last decade may help propel both MIS
departments and users toward the need for some form of participatory design.
The proliferation of PCs throughout many organizations means that many for
merly passive users have begun to ask not what they could do for the MIS
department, but what the MIS department could do for them. In fact, as many
workers become more familiar with using computer hardware and software they
no longer think of themselves as the silent majority. Thus the fact that MIS
departments perceive that they are losing some control combined with the real
ization that users are getting more knowledgeable can lead us in the direction of
practices that involve more participation from all who are affected by changes
that occur when computer applications are installed or updated.
FROM USER-CENTERED TO PARTICIPATORY DESIGN
In the mid 1980s research in the area of user-centered design pointed out the need
for applications that were not just user-friendly, but rather were more deeply
rooted in the practices of people using them. The user-centered approach at
tempted to bring people back into the picture, putting emphasis on the need to
develop systems that worked in practice, not just in testing. During this period

Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents

The Sportsman’s Club Afloat 1 25
The Sportsman’s Club among the Trappers 1 25
FRANK NELSON SERIES. By Harry Castlemon. 3 vols. 12mo. Fully
illustrated. Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box $3 75
Snowed Up; or, The Sportsman’s Club in the Mts. 1 25
Frank Nelson in the Forecastle; or, The Sportsman’s Club among the
Whalers 1 25
The Boy Traders; or, The Sportsman’s Club among the Boers 1 25
BOY TRAPPER SERIES. By Harry Castlemon. 3 vols., 12mo. Fully
The Buried Treasure; or, Old Jordan’s “Haunt” 1 25
The Boy Trapper; or, How Dave Filled the Order 1 25
The Mail Carrier 1 25
ROUGHING IT SERIES. By Harry Castlemon. 3 vols., 12mo. Fully
illustrated. Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box. $3 75
George in Camp; or, Life on the Plains 1 25
George at the Wheel; or, Life in a Pilot House 1 25
George at the Fort; or, Life Among the Soldiers 1 25
ROD AND GUN SERIES. By Harry Castlemon. 3 vols., 12mo. Fully
Don Gordon’s Shooting Box 1 25
Rod and Gun 1 25

The Young Wild Fowlers 1 25
FOREST AND STREAM SERIES. By Harry Castlemon. 3 vols., 12mo.
Fully illustrated. Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box $3 75
Joe Wayring at Home; or, Story of a Fly Rod 1 25
Snagged and Sunk; or, The Adventures of a Canvas Canoe 1 25
Steel Horse; or, The Rambles of a Bicycle 1 25
WAR SERIES. By Harry Castlemon. 4 vols., 12mo. Fully illustrated.
Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box 5 00
True to his Colors 1 25
Rodney, the Partisan 1 25
Marcy, the Blockade Runner 1 25
Marcy, the Refugee 1 25
OUR FELLOWS; or, Skirmishes with the Swamp Dragoons. By Harry
Castlemon. 16mo. Fully illustrated. Cloth, extra 1 25
Alger’s Renowned Books.
BY
Horatio Alger, Jr.
Horatio Alger, Jr., has attained distinction as one of
the most popular writers of books for boys, and the
following list comprises all of his best books.

Specimen Cover of
the Ragged Dick
Series.
⁂ Any volume sold separately.

RAGGED DICK SERIES. By Horatio Alger, Jr. 6 vols., 12mo. Fully
illustrated. Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box
$7
50
Ragged Dick; or, Street Life in New York 1 25
Fame and Fortune; or, The Progress of Richard Hunter 1 25
Mark, the Match Boy; or, Richard Hunter’s Ward 1 25
Rough and Ready; or, Life Among the New York Newsboys 1 25
Ben, the Luggage Boy; or, Among the Wharves 1 25
Rufus and Rose; or, the Fortunes of Rough and Ready 1 25
TATTERED TOM SERIES. (First Series.) By Horatio Alger, Jr. 4
vols., 12mo. Fully illustrated. Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box 5 00
Tattered Tom; or, The Story of a Street Arab 1 25
Paul, the Peddler; or, The Adventures of a Young Street Merchant 1 25
Phil, the Fiddler; or, The Young Street Musician 1 25
Slow and Sure; or, From the Sidewalk to the Shop 1 25
TATTERED TOM SERIES. (Second Series.) 4 vols., 12mo. Fully
$5
00
Julius; or the Street Boy Out West 1 25
The Young Outlaw; or, Adrift in the World 1 25
Sam’s Chance and How He Improved it 1 25
The Telegraph Boy 1 25

LUCK AND PLUCK SERIES. (First Series.) By Horatio Alger, Jr. 4
vols., 12mo. Fully illustrated. Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box
$5
00
Luck and Pluck; or John Oakley’s Inheritance 1 25
Sink or Swim; or, Harry Raymond’s Resolve 1 25
Strong and Steady; or, Paddle Your Own Canoe 1 25
Strive and Succeed; or, The Progress of Walter Conrad 1 25
LUCK AND PLUCK SERIES. (Second Series.) By Horatio Alger, Jr. 3
vols., 12mo. Fully illustrated. Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box
$5
00
Try and Trust; or, The Story of a Bound Boy 1 25
Bound to Rise; or Harry Walton’s Motto 1 25
Risen from the Ranks; or, Harry Walton’s Success 1 25
Herbert Carter’s Legacy; or, The Inventor’s Son 1 25
CAMPAIGN SERIES. By Horatio Alger, Jr. 3 vols., 12mo. Fully
Frank’s Campaign; or, The Farm and the Camp 1 25
Paul Prescott’s Charge 1 25
Charlie Codman’s Cruise 1 25
BRAVE AND BOLD SERIES. By Horatio Alger, Jr. 4 vols., 12mo. Fully
$5
00
Brave and Bold; or, The Story of a Factory Boy 1 25
Jack’s Ward; or, The Boy Guardian 1 25

Shifting for Himself; or, Gilbert Greyson’s Fortunes 1 25
Wait and Hope; or, Ben Bradford’s Motto 1 25
PACIFIC SERIES. By Horatio Alger, Jr. 4 vols., 12mo. Fully illustrated.
Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box
$5
00
The Young Adventurer; or, Tom’s Trip Across the Plains 1 25
The Young Miner; or, Tom Nelson in California 1 25
The Young Explorer; or, Among the Sierras 1 25
Ben’s Nugget; or, A Boy’s Search for Fortune. A Story of the Pacific
Coast 1 25
ATLANTIC SERIES. By Horatio Alger, Jr. 4 vols., 12mo. Fully
$5
00
The Young Circus Rider; or, The Mystery of Robert Rudd 1 25
Do and Dare; or, A Brave Boy’s Fight for Fortune 1 25
Hector’s Inheritance; or, Boys of Smith Institute 1 25
Helping Himself; or, Grant Thornton’s Ambition 1 25
WAY TO SUCCESS SERIES. By Horatio Alger, Jr. 4 vols., 12mo. Fully
$5
00
Bob Burton 1 25
The Store Boy 1 25
Luke Walton 1 25
Struggling Upward 1 25

Specimen Cover of
the Wyoming Series.
New Book by Alger.
DIGGING FOR GOLD. By Horatio Alger, Jr. Illustrated 12mo. Cloth,
black, red and gold 1 25
A New Series of Books.
Indian Life and Character Founded on
Historical Facts.
By Edward S. Ellis.
⁂ Any volume sold separately.

BOY PIONEER SERIES. By Edward S. Ellis. 3 vols., 12mo. Fully
Ned in the Block House; or, Life on the Frontier 1 25
Ned in the Woods. A Tale of the Early Days in the West 1 25
Ned on the River 1 25
DEERFOOT SERIES. By Edward S. Ellis. In box containing the
following. 3 vols., 12mo. Illustrated $3 75
Hunters of the Ozark 1 25
Camp in the Mountains 1 25
The Last War Trail 1 25
LOG CABIN SERIES. By Edward S. Ellis. 3 vols., 12mo. Fully
Lost Trail $1 25
Camp-Fire and Wigwam 1 25
Footprints in the Forest 1 25
WYOMING SERIES. By Edward S. Ellis. 3 vols., 12mo. Fully
Wyoming 1 25
Storm Mountain 1 25
Cabin in the Clearing 1 25
New Books by Edward S. Ellis.

Through Forest and Fire. 12mo. Cloth 1 25
On the Trail of the Moose. 12mo. Cloth 1 25
By C. A. Stephens.
Rare books for boys—bright, breezy, wholesome and instructive; full of adventure
and incident, and information upon natural history. They blend instruction with
amusement—contain much useful and valuable information upon the habits of
animals, and plenty of adventure, fun and jollity.
CAMPING OUT SERIES. By C. A. Stephens. 6 vols., 12mo. Fully
$7
50
Camping Out. As recorded by “Kit” 1 25
Left on Labrador; or The Cruise of the Schooner Yacht “Curfew.” As
recorded by “Wash” 1 25
Off to the Geysers; or, The Young Yachters in Iceland. As recorded by
“Wade” 1 25
Lynx Hunting. From Notes by the author of “Camping Out” 1 25
Fox Hunting. As recorded by “Raed” 1 25
On the Amazon; or, The Cruise of the “Rambler.” As recorded by
“Wash” 1 25
By J. T. Trowbridge.
These stories will rank among the best of Mr. Trowbridge’s books for the young—
and he has written some of the best of our juvenile literature.
JACK HAZARD SERIES. By J. T. Trowbridge. 6 vols., 12mo. Fully
Illustrated. Cloth, extra, printed in colors. In box
$7
50

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in
spelling.
2. Retained anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain
spellings as printed.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CAMP IN THE
FOOT-HILLS; OR, OSCAR ON HORSEBACK ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.
copyright law means that no one owns a United States
copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the
General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the
free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and
Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree
to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease
using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only
be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the
work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement
by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full
Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project
Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project

Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and
with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it,
give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project
Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of
the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project
Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files

containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must,
at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy,
a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy
upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or
providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty

payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who
notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright

law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these
efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium
on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,
transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be
read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.

If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set
forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you
do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission
of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status
by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or
federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions
to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500
West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws
regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine
the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states
where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot
make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current
donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and

credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several
printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.

Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!
ebookgate.com

Participatory Design Principles and Practices 1st Edition Douglas Schuler

More Related Content

Similar to Participatory Design Principles and Practices 1st Edition Douglas Schuler (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Participatory Design Principles and Practices 1st Edition Douglas Schuler