@article {290,
	title = {Mobility in the Round: Use of Wireless Laptop PCs in Clinical Ward Rounds},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {93 - 108},
	abstract = {It has been suggested that mobile Information and communication technologies (MICTs) are better suited than traditional desktop devices to support work practices where participants are either moving around or conduct their work in different spatially dispersed settings. One such practice, which might be expected to benefit from MICT support, is the ward rounds conducted by hospital doctors. After a brief description of this practice, data are presented on the usage of laptop PCs in ward rounds in the Medicine Service of a U.S. hospital with a well-established IT infrastructure. Drawing on questionnaires, Interviews, and observational evidence, the paper explores why, 5 years after the laptops were first introduced, a quarter of the clinicians had never used them, and only a quarter took advantage of more than their basic functionality. A number of possible reasons for the failure of doctors to adopt a technology that is seen as offering significant benefits to their work are discussed. In particular, it appeared that the reliability of the technology, differences in senior doctors{\textquoteright} ward round practices, and social inertia contributed to the low level of uptake. Other local factors, such as the architecture of the building and departmental practices regarding laptop usage, also affected doctors{\textquoteright} use. Implications for research on ubiquitous Computing are drawn.},
	doi = {10.1007/0-387-28918-6_9},
	author = {Martins, Henrique and Matthew Jones}
}
@article {236,
	title = {Debatable Advice and Inconsistent Evidence: Methodology in Information Systems Research},
	year = {2004},
	month = {2004},
	pages = {121 - 142},
	abstract = {The range of legitimate methods in IS research has expanded considerably over the past 20 years, a process to which IFIP Working Group 8.2 is seen to have made an important contribution. This has probably made it even harder, however, for IS researchers to know what constitutes good methodological practice. This paper addresses this issue from two angles: first through a critical analysis of claims made in the IS literature regarding the characteristics of good research; and second through an examination of the use of methodology, as reported in a number of IS research papers. The characteristics of good research considered are that it should follow the scientific method; that it should fulfill certain criteria; that it should be relevant; and that it should employ multiple methods Each of these is shown to have limitations. With respect to methodology in practice, the analysis indicates a remarkable lack of consistency in the reporting of IS research. The implications of these findings are discussed.},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8095-6_8},
	author = {Matthew Jones}
}
@article {DBLP:conf/ifip8-2/AbbottJ02,
	title = {The Importance of Being Nearest: Nearshore Software Outsourcing and Globalization Discourse},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {375-397},
	author = {Pamela Abbott and Matthew Jones}
}
@article {DBLP:conf/ifip8-2/Jones00,
	title = {The Moving Finger: The Use of Social Theory in WG 8.2 Conference Papers, 1975-1999},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {15-32},
	author = {Matthew Jones}
}
@article {DBLP:conf/ifip8-2/JonesN93,
	title = {Structured Development? A Structurational Analysis of the Development of an Executive Information System},
	year = {1993},
	pages = {475-496},
	author = {Matthew Jones and Joe Nandhakumar}
}
@article {DBLP:conf/ifip8-2/JonesW92,
	title = {The Limits of the Knowable: Organizational and Design Knowledge in Systems Development},
	year = {1992},
	pages = {195-213},
	author = {Matthew Jones and Geoff Walsham}
}
