This paper documents some details and some examples of the influence of ethnomethodological work in the fieldwork tradition associated with European CSCW; in particular what has been termed ‘ethnomethodologically informed ethnography’. In so doing, we do not wish to downplay other perspectival and methodological contributions but to simply suggest that much of the ethnomethodological work that was done in the UK during the early development of CSCW had a distinctive character and made significant contributions to the study of complex organizational environments for design-related purposes that arguably reinvigorated the European fieldwork tradition. The distinctiveness we speak of in ‘ethnomethodologically informed ethnography’ had to do with what it owed to Wittgenstein and Winch as much as Garfinkel and Sacks, was rooted in a contempt for methodological fetishism, and emphasized the centrality of reasoning or rationale in the conduct of working and, more generally, social life. This focus and approach drew heavily on the ethnographic work of the likes of John Hughes in Lancaster, Wes Sharrock in Manchester, Bob Anderson at Xerox in Cambridge, and Christian Heath in King’s, London, where attention was focused on the actual ‘doing’ of work as opposed to work in some idealised form – and it is this that we suggest has become important to design and designers of various kinds and in various domains.

本文记录了民族方法论工作在与欧洲CSCW相关的田野调查传统中的影响的一些细节和示例。特别是所谓的“民族方法学民族志”。这样做时，我们不想低估其他观点和方法上的贡献，而只是建议在CSCW早期发展期间在英国所做的许多民族方法论工作具有鲜明的特征，并为复杂性研究做出了重要贡献用于设计相关目的的组织环境可以重新激发欧洲野外工作传统。我们在“民族方法学上的民族志”中所说的独特性与维特根斯坦和温奇以及加芬克尔和萨克斯所欠的一样，扎根于对方法拜物教的轻视，并强调了推理或理智在工作乃至整个社会生活中的核心地位。这种重点和方法极大地吸引了民族志学的研究，例如兰开斯特的约翰·休斯，曼彻斯特的韦斯·沙洛克，剑桥的施乐的鲍勃·安德森以及伦敦金斯的克里斯蒂安·希思，他们的注意力都集中在实际的“做事”上。而不是以某种理想化的形式工作–正是这一点，我们建议，对于各种类型和各个领域的设计和设计师而言，这已经变得很重要。