Human–Machine Reconfigurations

Suchman, L. (2007). Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press.

Type

Book

Intellectual base

Review or monograph

Year

2007

DOI registrant

Cambridge University Press

Link

https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511808418matched

Cited from

art_aesthetics, organizational_management

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Minimalism
  • A common failure is treating minimalism as universal truth rather than context-sensitive design choice

    This sourceFoundational STS/HCI text arguing that what counts as relevant or essential is constituted in situated action, undermining context-free essentialist minimalism.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    Suchman's abstract supports the general situated-action principle that context-free, essentialist universals are to be avoided, but it never mentions minimalism or calls its universalisation a common failure.

    “the author argues for research aimed at tracing the differences within specific sociomaterial arrangements without resorting to essentialist divides”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• Sociotechnical Systems
  • The informal-coordination system enabling humans to adapt to exceptions, coordinate across boundaries, and improvise solutions that formal structure does not anticipate

    This sourceFoundational STS/HCI text arguing that what counts as relevant or essential is constituted in situated action, undermining context-free essentialist minimalism.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    Supplies the situated-action premise that agency is enacted in practice rather than fixed by plans; it does not state the claim's design prescriptions (configuration, override, feedback loops).

    “the author argues for research aimed at tracing the differences within specific sociomaterial arrangements without resorting to essentialist divides. This requires expanding our unit of analysis, while recognizing the inevitable cuts or boundaries through which technological systems are constituted.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:52711e5b1351 · see in the full table