Collaborative Design - Collaborative Technologies and Applications for Interactive Information Design - page 218

boundaries. Its expression is conveyed through
description of user-centric and user-led (re)design
of the organizational website, which benefited
from user-generated research results.
Overall, participants learned from this project
that it is rewarding for change initiatives to use sys-
tems thinking processes in organizational settings
when the tools are adapted to the needs and pref-
erences of the participants. Additionally, results
suggest that leadership responsibilities include
collaborative design of a learning environment
which is rich in interactions and conversations and
that, concurrently, advance information sharing
and exchange relationships which purposefully
extend collective interpretive and appreciative
qualities and capabilities.

Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998).
Diversity in information systems action research
methods. European Journal of Information Sys-
tems, 7 , 90-107.

Bansler, J. (1989). Systems development research
in Scandinavia: Three theoretical schools. Scandi-
navian Journal of Information Systems, 1, 3-20.

Bratteteig, T. (2004). Making change. Dealing
with relations between design and use. Doctoral
Dissertation, No 332, Department of Informatics,
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Brown, J. S. (2002), “Growing up digital - How
the Web changes work, education, and the ways
people learn”, Journal of the United States Dis-
tance Learning Association , 16(2). Retrieved from
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/
article01.html

reFerenCes

Bruce, C. (1997a). The seven faces of information
literacy . Blackwood, South Australia: Auslib
Press.

Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Re-creating the corporation:
A design of organizations for the 21st century .
New York: Oxford University Press

Bruce, C. (1997b) The relational approach: A new
model for information literacy. The New Review
of Information and Library Research, 3, 3—22.

Ackoff, R., Magidson, J., & Addison, H. J. (2006).
Idealized design: Creating an organization's
future . Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Wharton
School Publishing.

Champion, D., & Stowell, F. A. (2003). Validating
action research field studies: PEARL, Systemic
Practice and Action Research , 16( 1), 21-36. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1991). Participatory

action research and action science compared: A
Commentary. In W. F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory
action research , pp. 85-96. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Checkland, P. B. (1979). Techniques in 'soft'
systems practice part 1: Systems diagrams - some
tentative guidelines. Journal of Applied Systems
Analysis, 6 , 33-40.

Association of College and Research Libraries
(ACRL). (2000). Information literacy compe-
tency standards for higher education , Chicago,
Illinois: American Library Association. Retrieved
from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/
standards.pdf

Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems
practice . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Checkland, P. B. (1985). From optimizing to
learning: A development of systems thinking for
the 1990s. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 36 (9), 757-767.

Banathy, B. H., & Jenlink, P. M., (Eds.) (2005),
Dialogue as a means of collective communication .
New York City, New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers.

Checkland, P. B. (2000). Soft systems methodol-
ogy: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research
and Behavioral Science, 17 (S1), 11-58.