After reading Berg (1998), it seems to open up an issue with the normal framing of social studies, which expected some type of reality to emerge in the end of a period of immersion. It may not be the ideal investigative form. Social studies of computing had seen many studies which are highly reflexive of the present, yet told us little about the future. Berg (1998) reflected on the CSCW’s theories and revealed the high level of negativity in ‘present’ studies, leading to formation of ‘impossibility theorem’ such as situated action. Its somewhat ironical that the sole conclusion such studies turned out was for designers to “leave their labs and become ethnographers… or they should at least co-operate with the ethnographers” (Berg, 1998). Further studies made things even milkier, urging complete symmetrifying of society and technology, making them one and the same.

Additional studies that are more positive developed at a later period, an example being that of communities of practice and associated ideas such as the boundary objects, common ground, and legitimate peripheral practices (Wenger, 1998). It was the conceptualization of elements for thoughts, which breakthrough the ‘impossibility’ of previous studies. Finally, we are able to think of work within communities in stronger images. However, this has not helped us from diving into the present in search for these invisible constructs (Kallinikos, 2004).

One cannot help but ask, if engineering disciplines were able to continuously investigate a phenomena and uncover its properties, why not social studies? Why do social scientists have to move from on domain to another, urging to find something ‘interesting’ that applies to all other social circumstances? If an engineer is given aluminum one month and then iron the next, surely he would find it hard to fully understand the physical properties of any. Rather, Kallinikos (2004) rightfully called for overlooking constructivism and diving deeper into history, development, cross-contextual forms, and communities inter-dependency.

Moving away from social construction, a researcher also requires a reframing of one’s research orientation and goals. Rather than closing onto one domain and time frame, one should devote a longer term perspective within a domain and look into both the past and future. Emerging properties are much more important to a community, for its in essence its future. The failure to answer anything about the future is the reason why we can only ask designers to learn ethnography, nothing more. In fact, by absorbing another scientific field into our frame, we have defeated ourselves in the purpose of our existence.

=========
References
Groleau C, Demers C, Lalancette M, and Barros M (in process of publication). Contradictions in practice-based studies of technological change: Introducing 3D design in an architect firm. In Scandinavian Jor of Info Sys.

Feb 2008