Achieving Continuity. Reasoning and Knowing in IT Support Practices

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyse knowing in action, that is, how people respond to challenges and disturbances in an ongoing work process of a very complex nature. The theoretical background is an interest in the relationships between people and artefacts in situated activities, and how one learns to become a competent knower. The empirical work has been carried out in the context of the work performed by an IT support unit at a major multinational company. The unit is responsible for the continuous surveillance and maintenance of a world-wide network which includes a broad range of technologies. The unit operates on a 24-hour schedule and has to respond to client queries. Data have been generated by analysing shift changes between teams working in this unit. These changes, which take place every eight hour and where the two shift-leaders interact, have been audio- and video-recorded. In addition, field notes have been taken, and the documentation produced has been collected.

The results illustrate the significance of texts and textual representations in this complex practice. The shift report produced three times a day serves as a tool for collective remembering, and as a reminder of what has to be done or kept in mind during the coming hours. It also documents problems that may be imminent. The discussions between the shift leaders, and within the staff in general, are characterised by continuous use of implicit knowledge that is hard to access for an outsider. Highly indexical expressions and categories effectively mediate complex information to those who are experienced in the problem-solving activities. This implies that the entrance as a competent member in this practice requires much more than general technical knowledge. To become a legitimate knower, the newcomer has to appropriate local distinctions and knowledge. There is also a seamless overlap between talk, texts, and technologies. Participants continuously orientate themselves to artefacts and textual representations whilst discussing problems. It is argued that knowing in this kind of activity is very much a situated affair in which generic skills relating to the understanding of technologies, of various kinds of textual representations, and of spoken discourse, are intertwined with insights into local practices that make use of such tools in a fairly unique fashion. This implies that the learning is dialectical: in order to understand local practices and instantiations of technologies and tools, some general, generic knowledge is necessary. But, such general knowledge is not sufficient for making a person a competent knower. In order to operate in the local practices, one also has to learn what the essential problems and issues are that have to be attended to. In addition, one has to learn to communicate with colleagues, clients and other groups with varying competencies. This is a very challenging task which requires considerable meta-understanding on the part of team members.