# Supporting cooperative work in qualitative analysis: the ergonomic challenges of digital artifacts

Margaux Coeuret, Aurélien Bénel, Joris Falip

► To cite this version:

Margaux Coeuret, Aurélien Bénel, Joris Falip. Supporting cooperative work in qualitative analysis: the ergonomic challenges of digital artifacts. ECCE 2025: 36th Annual Conference of the European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics, Oct 2025, Tallinn Estonia, Estonia. pp.1 - 4, 10.1145/3746175.3746209 . hal-05344563

HAL Id: hal-05344563

https://hal.science/hal-05344563v1

Submitted on 3 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Supporting cooperative work in qualitative analysis: the ergonomic challenges of digital artifacts

Margaux Coeuret

Aurélien Bénel

Joris Falip

LIST3N/Tech-CICO, Université de
Troyes

LIST3N/Tech-CICO, Université de
Troyes

LIST3N/Tech-CICO, Université de
Troyes

Troyes, France

Troyes, France

Troyes, France

margaux.coeuret@utt.fr

aurelien.benel@utt.fr

joris.falip@utt.fr

## Abstract

Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) has profoundly transformed research practices, particularly within the Grounded Theory Method (GTM) approach. However, when used in collaborative settings, these tools create tensions—such as cognitive overload, loss of traceability, and coordination difficulties—stemming from a mismatch between the functional rigidity of existing software and the interpretive flexibility inherent to cooperative work. An ethnographic study with students and researchers highlights these tensions by examining the coordination mechanisms through the protocols and artifacts utilized. In response to these findings, we propose design directions for a digital artifact better suited to support shared reasoning and document collective adjustments through a participatory approach grounded in the actual practices of GTM users.

## CCS Concepts

* Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing; Computer supported cooperative work.

## Keywords

Collaborative Work, Digital Artifacts, Qualitative analysis, User-Centered Design

## ACM Reference Format:

Margaux Coeuret, Aurélien Bénel, and Joris Falip. 2025. Supporting cooperative work in qualitative analysis: the ergonomic challenges of digital artifacts. In *36th Annual Conference of the European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics (EACE) (ECCE 2025), October 07–10, 2025, Tallinn, Estonia*. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3746175.3746209

## 1 Introduction and Related Work

Since the 1980s, qualitative analysis has undergone significant changes, particularly with the emergence of Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), such as NVivo and Atlas. ti. These tools have transformed practices like Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) [5], enabling researchers to move from

manual data processing to semi-automated coding and categorization processes [3, 13]. GTM relies on iterative coding and constant comparison, allowing theory to emerge directly from empirical data. While CAQDAS tools support key steps in the GTM process, they often prove insufficient in collaborative contexts. Methodological literature provides detailed guidance on coding procedures but offers limited insight into how collaboration unfolds when mediated by digital tools [1, 18]. Yet, qualitative research is frequently conducted collectively, requiring coordination, shared interpretation, and decision traceability [15]. Some software includes project-sharing features or collaborative commenting interfaces. Still, these functions can lead to cognitive overload and often fall short of supporting specific GTM practices such as interpretive exchanges or category construction [4, 7, 9]. This study explores how the challenges encountered in collaborative qualitative research projects, whether cognitive (mental workload, loss of analytical coherence) or organizational (coordination, decision traceability, stem from a misalignment between the functionalities offered by CAQDAS tools and the specific requirements of cooperative work in GTM. Based on the analysis of concrete coordination practices within GTM projects, we propose design recommendations to align digital tools with the collaborative needs of qualitative researchers.

## 2 Method

This study is based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted between March and April 2024 within the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Liège. It aimed to explore how cooperative work is structured in qualitative analysis practices using the Grounded Theory Method (GTM) [2]. It focused on coordination protocols in interdependent activities and the artifacts used throughout the analytical process. We employed qualitative data collection methods, including twelve participatory and non-participatory observations and six semi-structured interviews with researchers in psychology, sociology, and management sciences, students in sociology and education sciences, and PhD students trained in GTM. The observations took place in two settings: a master's seminar in education sciences, where students applied GTM to their thesis work, and a doctoral seminar in management sciences at the University of Namur, observed during its sixth session, where PhD students worked in groups on selected projects—such as "Toujours togé," a study on student parties—focusing on selective coding. To analyze cooperative work, interviews were conducted with PhD students in literature, education sciences, and linguistics, who described how they adapted collective learning to their research practices, and with academic researchers who supervise students and lead

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

ECCE 2025, Tallinn, Estonia
© 2025 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-2033-8/25/10
https://doi.org/10.1145/3746175.3746209
interdisciplinary projects using GTM. All collected data were ana-
lyzed using the Grounded Theory Method, allowing us to examine
coordination dynamics and organizational practices in collective
research projects involving GTM.

3 Coordination mechanisms in collaborative projects using GTM

In collective research contexts, cooperative activities rely on coor-
dination mechanisms [15] that involve processes through which
participants align their respective contributions to a common task.
These mechanisms combine formal procedures (rules, role assign-
ment) and situated adjustments (improvisations, readjustments), re-
lying on artifacts, shared routines, or informal negotiations [16]. In
the literature on Grounded Theory Methodology, these dimensions
of coordination have been relatively underexplored, although peer
collaboration is actively encouraged. Today, cooperative work in
GTM increasingly benefits from the support of Computer-Assisted
Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS). These tools have
expanded their features to enhance collaboration and support col-
lective reflexivity, particularly in coding and document sharing.
However, the standardized design of these tools can sometimes
diverge from the actual practices of users. Through this study, it
is interesting to observe whether there is a gap between the ob-
served cooperation dynamics and the uses prescribed by the digital
artifacts. This gap may raise significant issues regarding cognitive
ergonomics, decision traceability, and support for shared reasoning.

**3.1 Role distribution**

Initial coordination often relies on an explicit distribution of roles,
either imposed by an educational framework or negotiated within
the team. In our observations of students, this distribution is typi-
cally structured by instructors. Predefined roles then evolve through
iterations, allowing each participant to experience the different
stages of GTM. For example, in a master's seminar, students rotate
between roles such as "secretary", "coder", or "reader", to gradually
appropriate the qualitative analysis process. In more experienced
research teams, task distribution emerges through informal ad-
justments, depending on members' skills, availability, or fieldwork
requirements. These roles Supporting cooperative work in quali-
tative analysis: the ergonomic challenges of digital artifacts (data
collection, coding, etc.) remain flexible and evolve as the project pro-
gresses. For instance, a researcher joining a multidisciplinary team
was initially assigned to data coding but eventually took on data
collection tasks as well. This flexibility also appeared when a more
experienced team member naturally assumed the role of method-
ological mentor—though some teams operated horizontally, with
all members contributing equally to each stage. As one researcher
noted:

But in fact, we were also keen to go through each research
step together,
almost as safeguards. That is to say, we ourselves were not
experts in GTM;
after all, it was the first time we were practicing it.
These reported dynamics align with the distributed coordination
protocols described by Schmidt and Bannon (1996)[16], which rely
on continuous adjustments, verbal or implicit conventions, and

mutual observation of activities. The researchers and students we
encountered were able to collectively develop new coordination
mechanisms based on each individual's experience and the project's
requirements.

3.2 Limitations of digital artifacts in adjusting protocols

Despite the importance of collective adjustments in coordination
processes, our observations show that digital tools like CAQDAS
software often fail to support the practical redefinition of collabora-
tive protocols. For example, sociology students using the Cassandre
platform, designed for collaborative work, faced difficulties identify-
ing the authors of various contributions. In a collaborative research
environment where documents evolve based on changing roles and
tasks, it is essential to trace each modification's origin. A collabora-
tive digital artifact should also provide a shared representation of
the protocol, ensuring that all group members view the same infor-
mation on their interfaces. However, our observations of sociology
student workshops revealed that in Cassandre, modifications made
by one member only became visible to others after manual saving.
This lack of real-time synchronization hinders coordination. These
limitations reflect broader cognitive ergonomics issues [12] as the
interface does not fully support collaborative reasoning. The ab-
sence of real-time updates, role visibility, and traceability increases
cognitive load, fosters redundancy, and reduces transparency in
collective work. This lack of visibility leads to cognitive overload, as
users must make extra efforts to reconstruct the history of changes.
However, these shortcomings are not specific to Cassandre but
rather illustrate a more general limitation of CAQDAS software,
which is often poorly suited to the dynamic nature of shifting roles.

3.3 Articulation work

When initial plans are no longer sufficient, actors engage in the
process of articulation work [17], which includes a series of con-
crete adjustments aimed at maintaining the coherence of collective
activity. This work does not occur randomly; it emerges in response
to constraints related to organization, task execution, or even the
limitations of the digital artifacts used, particularly when these
tools do not guarantee continuous and shared access to elements of
the coordination protocol. This work of articulation was observed
within a group of sociology students working remotely, where each
member worked autonomously on tasks. However, when discrep-
ancies in task progress appeared between members, a spontaneous
reorganization of the work occurred. Members then adjusted the
distribution of tasks according to the group's needs. An excerpt
from the students' shared log on Cassandre illustrates this:

0... completed their interview and decided to find four articles in a
to help V... with the analysis so that they could choose the most rele-

This adjustment reflects a work of articulation, where roles and
responsibilities are re-adjusted to maintain the project's progress
and encourage moments of reflection when they meet in person.
However, we found that this micro-adjustment work remains in-
visible mainly in digital tools, as the absence of notifications or
tracking of contributions often means these adjustments go un-
noticed by other members. This tension between adhering to the
protocol and the need for task adaptation, which involves the work
of articulation, is also present in the GTM coding process. In various observed projects, several researchers indicated they did not strictly follow the method's prescribed coding steps (open, axial, selective). While open and axial coding was generally carried out, some researchers skipped selective coding due to ambiguities in the literature or practical constraints. One of the actors explained: *We still struggled to go beyond what he calls axial coding. We couldn't really get past that stage, so we decided to settle for selective coding.*

This testimony highlights a flexible use of GTM protocols, where actors adapt the prescribed rules based on field constraints, collective dynamics, and evolving analytical needs. The methodological handbooks also emphasize that the GTM steps should be adjusted as the analysis progresses rather than rigidly followed [2]. However, this protocol flexibility finds its limits in using the qualitative analysis software Cassandre, which imposes a strict sequence of steps, notably by requiring each coding step to be followed and a schema for axial coding. To overcome these constraints, researchers adopted various strategies, such as creating empty coding reports to bypass restrictions or externalizing coding and schematic steps to paper, thus promoting a freer and more collaborative form of writing. These adjustments transform the protocol into flexible guidelines rather than a rigid framework, similar to a map that guides decision making without constraining it [16].

## 3.4 Artifact ecology to support coordination

To compensate for the limitations of the available tools, we observed that the participants relied on an artifact ecology [8], which means a set of materials that, when integrated, support collective reasoning. The students we observed used different artifacts depending on the constraints and nature of the activity. They used shared online documents (such as Google Docs) to co-write and annotate emerging hypotheses. A collective paper notebook brought to each meeting was used to diagram and annotate connections between categories through hand-drawn sketches. Finally, asynchronous exchanges via instant messaging platforms (Discord, WhatsApp) helped maintain the continuity of reasoning between sessions. One participant emphasized the importance of using these messaging artifacts:

> If I remember correctly, we exchanged messages on WhatsApp and took the first words from Julien's message.

These platforms allowed students and researchers to create discussion groups, share photos of their work, record meetings, and request targeted feedback from their peers. They also used shared documents (such as Google Docs) to track role changes and identify each person's contributions using a color code. Through this ecology of artifacts, students and researchers could free themselves from the rigidity of the protocols imposed by Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), facilitating a smoother flow of information. However, this dispersion of information increased cognitive load [19], forcing members to reconstruct the decision history and juggle multiple tools to maintain collective coherence. The observed situations revealed incomplete instrumentate processes [14], as the artifact remained rigid and poorly adaptable by its users. This dissociation between centralized

tools (CAQDAS) and alternative supports (shared documents, notebooks) reflects a partial failure of technical mediation. In reality, these adjustments reflect less a rejection of the tool than adaptive creativity, where students implement collective "bricolage" strategies[6, 10], creatively mobilizing specialized artifacts to manage protocols and organize collaborative work. Although CAQDAS software retains a traceability function for the final documentation, the reflection and theoretical analysis stages are primarily constructed through alternative supports such as discussion groups and shared documents.

## 4 Design proposal

The data show that digital tools for qualitative analysis, such as CAQDAS software, provide limited support for the flexible and informal coordination required in collaborative GTM work. While useful for coding, they lack features to track contributions, manage interpretive disagreements, and visualize collective progress, resulting in cognitive overload and fragmented collaboration. In response to these limitations, we propose designing an artifact supporting collaborative work among researchers by aligning the tool with the collaborative coordination dynamics observed in GTM projects. This system would support cooperative reasoning by making visible the contributions, discussions, and protocol adjustments throughout the analysis process. The artifact would include a shared logbook, allowing members to visualize individual contributions through an interactive memo graph. This visualization would illustrate links between documents, track tasks and analysis progress, anticipate and plan the next data collection steps, and provide immediate feedback on each member's involvement. From a cognitive ergonomics perspective, using an interactive memo graph also facilitates navigation through the analysis process by spatially organizing connections between concepts and documents. Visualizing these links graphically helps users quickly identify related content, understand the evolution of analytical categories, and maintain a coherent overview of their analytical path. The system would incorporate detailed history tracking to ensure transparency and accountability and author color-coding to distinguish contributions within shared documents. Although role management is crucial for coordination and contribution tracking, few software solutions offer a dynamic and detailed approach. Video conferencing tools like Zoom or Microsoft Teams provide basic role management but lack advanced mechanisms for tracking individual contributions. Tools like Loomio, focused on collaborative decision-making, offer contribution traceability through visualizations, but these can overwhelm users with information. In summary, role management in these tools remains too simplistic or visually intrusive. This situation raises design challenges that we explore in developing our artifact. Current CAQDAS tools also lack flexibility in visualizing relationships between codes, which leads many users to rely on paper-based schematizations that are difficult to integrate and often result in the loss of analytical insights. We propose integrating interactive concept maps or customizable whiteboards into the digital environment to address this issue, enabling users to organize, link, and annotate elements freely. Additional features—such as importing sketches or handwritten notes (via image uploads or on-screen
drawing)—could help researchers preserve their analog schemati-
zations. Furthermore, inspired by version control systems like Git,
a visual history feature could be integrated into the concept map,
allowing users to track the evolution of their diagrams, identify
analytical changes, and revert to previous versions if necessary

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, collaborative analysis in Grounded Theory Method-
ology (GTM) requires flexible, distributed coordination where re-
searchers adjust roles and contributions based on evolving inter-
pretations. This often informal process contrasts with the rigid
protocols of current digital tools like CAQDAS software, which
struggle to support such flexibility, particularly in tracking author-
ship and modifications. To address these issues, we propose design-
ing an artifact that aligns with researchers’ practices and needs
through a participatory approach. This approach will ensure that
the tools developed align with their practices and analytical needs.
By using Wendy Mackay’s Comparative Structured Observation
(CSO) method (2025) [11], we will iterate on design variants such
as interface adjustments, visualization formats, and historical track-
ing systems—while testing them in real world contexts. Each cycle
will refine functionalities, identify obstacles, and support collective
reflection, thereby enhancing the integration of the tools into the
analytical process.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a French government grant managed
by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche as part of the France
2030 program (reference ANR-22-EXEN-0003, PEPR eNSEMBLE /
PILOT). We also acknowledge the financial support of the Grand
Est region and the Ministry of Research (France). Finally, we are
grateful to the researchers and students who participated in this
study.

References

[1] Kathy Charmaz. 2006. *Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis* (repr ed.). Sage, Los Angeles.

[2] Margaux Coeuret, Joris Falip, and Aurélien Bénel. 2025. Cooperating in Academia with Underspecified Protocols: A Case Study of Students and Researchers Practitioners of Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM). In *Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work - Exploratory Papers*. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET). doi:10.48340/ecscw2025_ep03

[3] Judith Davidson, Trena Paulus, and Kristi Jackson. 2016. Speculating on the Future of Digital Tools for Qualitative Research. *Qualitative Inquiry* 22, 7 (Sept. 2016), 606–610. doi:10.1177/1077800415622505

[4] Susanne Friese. 2012. *Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti*. SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP. doi:10.4135/9781529799590

[5] Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. *The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research*. Routledge, London New York.

[6] Josiane Jouët. 2000. Retour critique sur la sociologie des usages. *Réseaux* 18, 100 (2000), 487–521. doi:10.3406/reso.2000.2235

[7] Virpi Kalakoski, Andreas Henelius, Emilia Oikarinen, Antti Ukkonen, and Kai Puolamäki. 2019. Cognitive ergonomics for data analysis. Experimental study of cognitive limitations in a data-based judgement task. *Behaviour & Information Technology* 38, 10 (Oct. 2019), 1038–1047. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2019.1657181

[8] Henrik Korsgaard, Peter Lyle, Joanna Saad-Sulonen, Clemens Nylandsted Klokemose, Midas Nouwens, and Susanne Bødker. 2022. Collectives and Their Artifact Ecologies. *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction* 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1–26. doi:10.1145/3555533

[9] Christophe Lejeune. 2023. Ce que l'informatique fait à l'analyse qualitative. L'histoire croisée des CAQDAS et de Cassandre. *Recherches qualitatives* 42, 2 (2023), 4. doi:10.7202/1108606ar

[10] Claude Lévi-Strauss. 1962. La pensée sauvage. Plon-Julliard, Chapitre 1.

[11] Wendy E. Mackay and Joanna McGrenere. 2025. Comparative Structured Observation: A Mixed Qualitative Method for "Getting the Design Right". In *Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–3. doi:10.1145/3706599.3706654

[12] Donald A. Norman (Ed.). 1986. *User centered system design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction* (9. [print.] ed.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

[13] Pierre Paille and Alex Mucchielli. 2021. *L'analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales* (5e éd. ed.). Armand Colin, Malakoff.

[14] Pierre Rabardel. 1995. *Les hommes et les technologies : approche cognitive des instruments contemporains*. Armand Colin.

[15] Kjeld Schmidt and Liam Bannon. 1992. Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)* 1, 1-2 (March 1992), 7-40. doi:10.1007/BF00752449

[16] Kjeld Schmidt and Carla Simonee. 1996. Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)* 5, 2-3 (1996), 155-200. doi:10.1007/BF00133655

[17] Anselm Strauss. 1988. The Articulation of Project Work: An Organizational Process. *The Sociological Quarterly* 29, 2 (June 1988), 163-178. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1988.tb01249.x

[18] Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1990. *Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques*. Sage, Newbury Park London New Delhi.

[19] John Sweller. 1988. Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. *Cognitive Science* 12, 2 (April 1988), 257-285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4