This paper1 establishes the importance of situatedness of experience in Information Systems (IS) studies, but also critiques the limited notion of situatedness all too frequently employed. In the original language of phenomenology as used by Heidegger, ‘Befindlichkeif means not just ‘state of mind’ but also refers to disposition, mood, affectedness and emotion. The paper reviews the controversies in the literature generated by opponents to the situatedness literature and provides two case studies to show how current IS uses of the situatedness perspectives differ from the original one. From this discussion, the paper argues that the limited IS research agendas on situated action found in Al, cognitive and social sciences need to capture the inner life of the actor, mind and heart, through the scope of a renewed, authentic, phenomenological tradition.
BrownJ.S., and DuguidP. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Towards a unified view of working, learning and innovation, Organization Science2(1): 40–57.
2.
BurrellG., and MorganG. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, London: Heineman.
3.
CiborraC. (1996). The Platform Organization: Recombining strategies, structures, and surprises, Organization Science7(2): 103–118.
4.
ClanceyW. (1977). Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer Representation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ContuA., and WillmottH. (2003). Re-embedding Situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory, Organization Science14(3): 283–296.
6.
CrottyM. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research – Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, London: Sage.
7.
DeetzS. (1996). Describing Differences in Approaches in Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy, Organization Science7(2): 191–207.
8.
DourishP. (2002). Where the Action is – The Foundations of Embodied Interaction, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
9.
DreyfusH.L. (1991). Being- in – the – World – A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division 1, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10.
GadamerH.G. (1975). Truth and Method, New York: Seabury Press.
11.
GiddensA. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure, Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
12.
GuignonC. (2002). Philosophy and Authenticity: Heidegger's Search for a Ground for Philosophizing, in WrathallM., and MalpasJ. (eds.) Heidegger, Authenticity and Modernity, Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus – Vol. 1, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 79–101.
13.
HarawayD.J. (1991). Situated Knowledges – Simians, Cyborgs, and Women – The Reinvention of Nature, London: Free Association Books, pp. 183–201.
14.
HeideggerM. (2004). The Phenomenology of Religious Life, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
15.
HeideggerM. (2002). Gesamtausgabe – Band 18 – Grundbegriffe der Aristotelischen Philosophie (1924), Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann.
16.
HeideggerM. (2001a). Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Introduction to Phenomenological Research, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
17.
HeideggerM. (2001b). Towards the Definition of Philosophy, London: Athlone Press.
18.
HeideggerM. (1993). Gesamtausgabe – Band 58 – Grundprobleme der Phanomenologie (1919/20), Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann.
19.
HeideggerM. (1962). Being and Time, Oxford: Blackwell.
20.
HusserlE. (1970). Logical Investigations, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
21.
KisielT. (1995). The Genesis of Heidegger's Being & Time, Berkley: University of California Press.
22.
LaveJ., and WengerE. (1991). Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
O'SullivanT., DuttonB., and RaynerP. (2003). Studying the Media, London: Arnold.
24.
OrlikowskiW.J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations, Organization Science11(4): 404–428.
25.
OrlikowskiW.J. (1996). Improvising Organizational Transformation over Time – A Situated Change Perspective, Information Systems Research7: 63–92.
26.
OrrJ. (1996). Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
27.
RobertsonT. (2003). The Public Availability of Actors and Artefacts, Computer Supported Collaborative Work11: 299–316.
28.
SchultzeU., and LeidnerD.E. (2002). Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions, MIS Quarterly26(3): 213–242.
29.
SchankR., and AbelsonR. (1977). Scripts, Plans and Knowledge, in Johnson–LairdP., and WasonP. (eds.) Thinking, Readings in Cognitive Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
SuchmanL.A. (2000). Human/Machine Reconsidered, Introduction to the 2nd revised edition of Plans and Situated Actions – draft – Lancaster University.
31.
SuchmanL.A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions – the Problem of Human Machine Communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
VeraA.H., and SimonH.A. (1993). Situated Action: A symbolic interpretation, Cognitive Science17: 7–48.
33.
WeickK.E. (1993). The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann gulch disaster, Administrative Science Quarterly38(4): 628–652.
34.
WeickK.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, Reading, MA: Addison – Wesley.
35.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
WinogradT., and FloresF. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
