1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise for the non-participants

In Lawson, Brian (1990). How designers think: The design process demystified (2nd ed.): Butterworth Architecture.

I always feel like my reading lists are limitless, so I didn't really think I would have much of an answer for him. However, I thought about it for a minute and realized that I actually do have a strategy for avoiding that overwhelmed feeling. Here's my reply:

I have such difficulties knowing when to stop! Usually, I have a writing deadline which helps. At some point I just have to stop and start writing. However, given the right boundaries on your topic, it is possible to feel that you have a manageable amount to read. You can set these boundaries in a few ways but here's how I think about it in an eight step process. (Argh, more reading.)

1. Topic

   Narrow down your topic. No, that's still too broad. No seriously, narrow it down. Got it? Okay.

2. Research paradigms

   You're researching topic X. First you decide, "am I interested in research that takes a normative, analytical, interpretive or critical approach?" That narrows your reading list significantly. Base your choice on your goal for reading about topic X (what discipline/community of practice you are in or, if writing something, what your audience is familiar with, combo of the two, etc.)

   I should point out that there are other research paradigms than the four I mention. Some disciplines have a few others and some don't consider a few I listed, or call it something else ...no one's in charge of the overarching taxonomy. To make things more difficult, researchers don't often explicitly state their research paradigm(s) so you only come to recognize them by doing a lot of broad reading. (If "research paradigm" sounds unfamiliar to you, just read the dialogs under "Appendix E" and you'll get the gist.)

   If you are writing something, and you choose a different research paradigm from those your audience is accustomed to when they consider topic X, then you will have to be familiar with what your audience is accustomed to as well so you can explain the difference in your approach and why it's of interest. Your reading list has now almost doubled but that's what you get for being interdisciplinary. Serves ya right, troublemaker.

3. Foundational works

   Find out which books/articles everyone cites about Topic X within a particular research paradigm and read them. Don't rely on just reading what others say about them. There won't be that many -- seriously, these are only the ones that everyone cites.

4. Recent authors

   Determine the major living (or recently deceased) authors/researchers of Topic X who work within your research paradigms of interest. Read their most highly cited work on Topic X. You might also glance at their most recent works (particularly the bibliographies) but they will most likely be building on their most cited works and they will assume you are familiar with them.

5. Talk about it

   Talk about it with people. They'll say "have you read [...]?" If they seem to understand your goal for reading about topic X, then go read [...].

6. Topic (again)

   At this point, you realize that your original topic was way too broad and it was really based on a lot of assumptions that should be questioned. You shake your head at how young and naive you were back then. Narrow your topic. Your topic is now Topic x (lowercase x).

7. Patterns

   At some point in your reading, you will have a cluster of authors, writing within a particular research paradigm who basically say the same thing or describe the same idea. When this keeps happening, you can probably stop reading now -- at least about that particular idea. Sort them into a category (authors within research paradigm Y who write about Topic x and idea Z). If you are writing something, in your article/paper/book/whatever, summarize their idea, cite all of the authors, and then say why you do or don't agree with them. Or, if idea Z is a bit more mixed or nuanced, mention the questions idea Z raises.

8. Profit

   Rake in the dough this work will bring you (not).

Research statement

My research examines the design of ICT for social development and international aid projects as a value-laden activity. I consider users and artifacts within their larger sociotechnical ensemble; a unit of analysis intended to invoke both the social and technical as a seamless web of “facts, artifacts and society” (Bijker & Law, 1992, p. 291). Taking it as our unit of analysis allows us, as Bijker (1995) explains, “to deal with questions of value-ladenness, of emancipatory and oppressive potentials, of democratization, and of the embeddedness of technology in modern culture” (p. 280). Understanding the design of ICT for social development and international aid projects requires a study of both design and use to construct a complete understanding of these practices. Assessments of ICT for development projects, however, frequently limit themselves to considering the acceptance or rejection of technology by the intended users without problematizing the design process of the technology itself. An examination of the design practices shaping 21st century ICT for development requires an understanding of multiple relevant social groups. Each relevant social group has a technological frame that “structures the interactions among its members” and “shapes their thinking and acting” (Bijker, 2010). These social groups include state actors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), design agencies, design advocacy organizations, and design practitioners.

ICT for development projects require designers to devise technologies intended for users who are quite different from the designers themselves. Specifically, these differences are ones of power, culture, and the underlying assumptions about particular technologies (Orlikowski & Gash, 1994, p. 832). The body of literature exploring designers’ assumptions about users provides us with examples of how designers’ worldviews can affect the use of technology (Oudshoorn & Pinch, 2003; Woolgar, 1991), particularly where ethnicity and gender are concerned (Kolko, 1999; Nakamura, 2002; Taylor, 2003, 2004). It challenges us to consider how we might make visible these assumptions to cultivate critical analysis for reflective creative practice.

References

• Bijker, Wiebe E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Bijker, Wiebe E. (2010). How is technology made?--That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 63-76.
• Bijker, Wiebe E., & Law, John (1992). Postscript: technology, stability and social theory. In Wiebe E. Bijker &
• John Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 290-308). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Kolko, Beth E. (1999). Erasing @race: going white in the (inter)face. In Gilbert B. Rodman, Lisa Nakamura & Beth E. Kolko (Eds.), Race in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
• Nakamura, Lisa (2002). Cybertypes: race, ethnicity, and identity on the Internet. New York: Routledge.
• Orlikowski, Wanda J., & Gash, Debra C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 12(2), 174-207.
• Oudshoorn, Nelly, & Pinch, Trevor (2003). Introduction: How users and non-users matter. In Nelly Oudshoorn & Trevor Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: the co-construction of users and technologies (pp. vii, 340 p. :). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
• Taylor, T. L. (2003). Intentional Bodies: Virtual Environments and the Designers Who Shape Them. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 25-34.
• Taylor, T. L. (2004). The Social Design of Virtual Worlds: Constructing The User And Community Through Code. In I. M. Consalvo (Ed.), Internet Research Annual Volume 1: Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conferences 2000-2002 (pp. 260-268). New York: Peter Lang.
• Woolgar, Steve (1991). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. In John Law (Ed.), A Sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology, and domination (pp. 57-99). London; New York: Routledge.