“Why should I care?”: Understanding technology developers’ design mindsets in relation to prospective work design

References

• Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, D. E. (2022). Emerging technologies at work: Policy ideas to address negative consequences for work, workers, and society. ILR Review, 75(3), 527–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939221076747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbosa, F., Woetzel, J., & Mischke, J. (2017). Reinventing construction: A route of higher productivity. McKinsey Global Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Berkers, H. A., Rispens, S., & Le Blanc, P. M. (2022). The role of robotization in work design: A comparative case study among logistic warehouses. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(9), 1852–1875. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2043925
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock von Wülfingen, B. (2021). Big interdisciplinarity”: Unsettling and resettling excellence. In K. Kastenhofer & S. Molyneux-Hodgson (Eds.), Community and identity in contemporary technosciences (pp. 263–282). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Boos, D., Grote, G., & Guenter, H. (2013). A toolbox for managing organisational issues in the early stage of the development of a ubiquitous computing application. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 1261–1279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0634-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). Second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352
   Google Scholar
• Challenger, R., Clegg, C. W., & Shepherd, C. (2013). Function allocation in complex systems: Reframing an old problem. Ergonomics, 56(7), 1051–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.790482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Q., García de Soto, B., & Adey, B. T. (2018). Construction automation: Research areas, industry concerns and suggestions for advancement. Automation in Construction, 94, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677602900806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clegg, C. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31(5), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clegg, C., & Shepherd, C. (2007). The biggest computer programme in the world…ever!’: Time for a change in mindset? Journal of Information Technology, 22(3), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbett, J. M. (1985). Prospective work design of a human-centred CNC lathe. Behaviour & Information Technology, 4(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298508901801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crum, A., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716–733. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Schutter, G., Lesage, K., Mechtcherine, V., Nerella, V. N., Habert, G., & Agusti-Juan, I. (2018). Vision of 3D printing with concrete—technical, economic and environmental potentials. Cement and Concrete Research, 112, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., Wilson, J. R., & van der Doelen, B. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.661087
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dul, J., & Neumann, P. W. (2009). Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4), 745–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00612.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairburn, S., Heeley, R., & Pengelly, J. (2016). Crossing over, into and back: Design disciplines and identities. International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Aalborg University, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Faraj, S., & Pachidi, S. (2021). Beyond uberization: The co-constitution of technology and organizing. Organization Theory, 2(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787721995205
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A., & Völker, T. (2013). ‘Growing into what?’ The (un-)disciplined socialisation of early stage researchers in transdisciplinary research. Higher Education, 65(4), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9560-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanagan, J. G. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabelica, C., & Fiore, S. M. (2013). What can training researchers gain from examination of methods for active-learning (PBL, TBL, and SBL). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57, 1462–1466.
   Google Scholar
• Graser, K., Baur, M., Apolinarska, A. A., Dörfler, K., Hack, N., Jipa, A., Lloret-Fritschi, E., Sandy, T., Sanz-Pont, D., Hall, D., Kohler, M. (2020). DFAB HOUSE—A comprehensive demonstrator of digital fabrication in architecture. Fabricate 2020: Making Resilient Architecture, 130–139.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C. M. (2016). “It’s more of a mindset than a method”: UX practitioners’ conception of design methods. In (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose (pp. 4044–4055). Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C. M., Parsons, P., & Toombs, A. L. (2020). Building a holistic design identity through integrated studio education. In B. Hokanson, Ed. Educational technology beyond content - educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations (pp. 43–55). Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Grote, G. (2014). Adding a strategic edge to Human Factors/Ergonomics: Principles for the management of uncertainty as cornerstones for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grote, G. (2023). Shaping the development and use of artificial intelligence: How human factors and Ergonomics expertise can become more pertinent. Ergonomics, 66(11), 1702–1710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2023.2278408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grote, G., Ryser, C., Wäfler, T., Windischer, A., & Weik, S. (2000). KOMPASS: A method for complementary function allocation in automated work systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(2), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagtvedt, L. P. (2019). Creating Artificial Intelligence: An Inductive Study of How Creative Workers Forecast the Future and Manage Present Emotions [ Doctoral dissertation], Boston College, eSCholarship@BC, Boston College University. http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:108640.
   Google Scholar
• Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoope, G., Choi-Fitzpatrick, A., & Reddy, E. (2019). Drones for good: Interdisciplinary project-based learning between engineering and peace studies. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(5), 1378–1391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iannaccone, G., Imperadori, M., & Masera, G. (2014). Smart-ECO buildings towards 2020/2030 - innovative technologies for resource efficient buildings. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kastenhofer, K., & Molyneux-Hodgson, S. (2021). Community and identity in contemporary technosciences (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Band 31) (1st ed.). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, N., & Brooks, J. M. (2017). Template analysis for business and management students. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Konradt, U., Schippers, M. C., Garbers, Y., & Steenfatt, C. (2015). Effects of guided reflexivity and team feedback on team performance improvement: The role of team regulatory processes and cognitive emergent states. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1005608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lavikka, R., Kallio, J., Casey, T., & Airaksinen, M. (2018). Digital disruption of the AEC industry: Technology-oriented scenarios for possible future development paths. Construction Management & Economics, 36(11), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2018.1476729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavrsen, J. C., Daalhuizen, J., & Carbon, C.-C. (2023). The Design Mindset Inventory (D-Mindset0): A preliminary instrument for measuring design mindset. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED23), Bordeaux (pp. 3355–3364). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (Vol. 25, pp. 1–33). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2018). Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: The critical role of professional identity in open innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 746–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217747876
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNair, L. D., Paretti, M. C., & Kakar, A. (2008). Case study of prior knowledge: Expectations and identity constructions in interdisciplinary, cross-cultural virtual collaboration. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 386–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mejía, G. M., Henriksen, D., Xie, Y., García-Topete, A., Malina, R. F., & Jung, K. (2022). From researching to making futures: A design mindset for transdisciplinary collaboration. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2131086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misra, S., Harvey, R. H., Stokols, D., Pine, K. H., Fuqua, J., Shokair, S., & Whiteley, J. (2009). Evaluating an interdisciplinary undergraduate training program in health promotion research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4), 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.11.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitrany, M., & Stokols, D. (2005). Gauging the transdisciplinary qualities and outcomes of doctoral training programs. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(4), 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04270368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, J. (2023). When big brother is benevolent: How technology developers navigate power dynamics among users to elevate worker interests. Academy of Management Discoveries. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2022.0111
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science.(Eds. N. J. Cooke & M. L. Hilton). National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D., & Euchner, J. (2023). Design for a better world. Research-Technology Management, 66(3), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2023.2183015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oesterreich, T. D., & Teuteberg, F. (2016). Understanding the implications of digitisation and automation in the context of industry 4.0: A triangulation approach and elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Computers in Industry, 83, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, S. K., Andrei, D. M., & Van den Broeck, A. (2019). Poor work design begets poor work design: Capacity and willingness antecedents of individual work design behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1171–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, S. K., & Jorritsma, K. (2021). Good work design for all: Multiple pathways to making a difference. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(3), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1860121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, S. K., Van den Broeck, A., & Holman, D. (2017). Work design influences: A synthesis of multi-level factors that affect the design of jobs. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 267–308. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasmore, W., Francis, C., Haldeman, J., & Shani, A. (1982). Sociotechnical systems: A North American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies. Human Relations, 35(12), 1179–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678203501207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684–701. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research, 43(5), 527–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412453622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shamir, B., & Kark, R. (2004). A single-item graphic scale for the measurement of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. (2022). A guide to abductive thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(5), 1410–1421. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel, A. L., Hall, K. L., Fiore, S. M., Klein, J. T., Michelle Bennett, L., Gadlin, H., Stokols, D., Nebeling, L. C., Wuchty, S., Patrick, K., Spotts, E. L., Pohl, C., Riley, W. T., & Falk-Krzesinski, H. J. (2013). The team science toolkit: Enhancing research collaboration through online knowledge sharing. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(6), 787–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterson, P. E., Older Gray, M. T., & Clegg, C. W. (2002). A sociotechnical method for designing work systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, 44(3), 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497628
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterson, P., Robertson, M. M., Cooke, N. J., Militello, L., Roth, E., & Stanton, N. A. (2015). Defining the methodological challenges and opportunities for an effective science of sociotechnical systems and safety. Ergonomics, 58(4), 565–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1015622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar