Skip to main content
Log in

Representing practice in cognitive science

  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Agre, P., and Chapman, D. (1987a). What are plans for? Paper presented for the panel on Representing Plans and Goals, DARPA Planning Workshop, Santa Cruz, CA., MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agre, P., and Chapman, D. (1987b). Pengi: An implementation of a theory of activity. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, WA.

  • Allen, J. (1983). Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances. In M. Brady and R. Berwick (Eds.), Computational models of discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden, M. (1973). The structure of intentions. Journal of Theory of Social Behavior 3:23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, D., and Agre, P. (1986). Abstract reasoning as emergent from concrete activity. In M. Georgeoff and A. Lansky (Eds.), Reasoning about actions and plans: Proceedings of the 1986 workshop. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (1987). Expert systems and the science of knowledge. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (1978). Brainstorms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H., and Burns, S. (1979). Lecturing's work of talking introductory sociology, Department of Sociology, UCLA. To appear Ethnomethodological studies of work, Vol. II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., and Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2):131–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, J. (1982). The linguistic bases of communicative competence. In D. Tannen (Ed), Georgetown University roundtable on language and linguistics: Analyzing discourse: text and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., and Fuller, N. (1974). On the non-fatal nature of trouble: Sense-making and trouble-managing in lingua franca talk. Semiotica 13:1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London and Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, E. (1978). Mathematicians' work. Paper presented in the session on Ethnomethodology: Studies of Work, Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden. To appear in Garfinkel, H., Ethnomethodological studies of work in the discovering sciences, Vol. II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (1981). Art and artifact in laboratory science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., Livingston, E., and Garfinkel, H. (1983). Temporal order in laboratory work. In K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London and Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., and Woolgar, S. (1988). Introduction: Sociological Orientations to representational practice in science. Human Studies 11(2–3):99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1979). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchmann, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L., and Trigg, R. (in press). Constructing shared conceptual objects: A study of whiteboard practice. In J. Lave and S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Situation, occasion, and context in activity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Tibbetts, P. (1988). Representation and the realist- constructionist controversy. Human Studies 11(2–3):117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59 (236):433–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizenbaum, J. (1983). ELIZA: A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 25th Anniversary Issue 26(1):23–3 (reprinted from Communications of the ACM 29(1):36–45, January 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T., and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (1983). Irony in the social study of science. In K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London and Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (1985). Why not a sociology of machines? The case of sociology and artificial intelligence. Sociology 19(4):557–572.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This paper and the work that it reports have benefited substantially from discussions with my collaborators Randy Trigg and Brigitte Jordan. For developing observations on the use of whiteboards I am indebted to Randy Trigg, John Tang and to members of the Interaction Analysis Group at Xerox PARC; Christina Allen, Stephanie Behrend, Sara Bly, Tom Finholt, George Goodman, Austin Henderson, Brigitte Jordan, Jane Laursen, Susan Newman, Janice Singer, and Debbie Tatar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suchman, L.A. Representing practice in cognitive science. Hum Stud 11, 305–325 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177307

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177307

Keywords

Navigation