Recap

IS204Fall 2002

Our Concerns Information & knowledge

Are social Technology

Is socially constructed – meanings vary Is embedded in the social: practices,

understandings, power relations… “Good” design depends on for whom, what,

under what conditions Information technology

Understood embedded in a social and material matrix

Some key concerns Making the invisible visible

Invisible work, resources, participants The importance of practice

Actual day-to-day activities, not idealized Practice as how we (re)constitute our world Interaction between practice and technology

Sociotechnical networks People, technology, objects, practices, understandings,

values…continually mutually constituted What makes technology “work” is not inherent in the

design but in the dynamics of (ever-changing) sociotechnical networks

Topics we covered Is technology neutral? Social construction of technology (SCOT) Organizations & IT adoption and use Group and community dynamics in CMC Internet use; digital divide Usability, user-centered design Ethics

Is technology neutral? Friedman & Nissenbaum’s types of bias

Pre-existing: rooted in social institutions, practices, attitudes; prior to creation of system

Technical: rooted in tech design• Computer tools• Formalization of human constructs (e.g. expert

systems; classification/taxonomies) Emergent: arises in context of use; result of

• changing societal knowledge • mismatch users and designers• different expertise (e.g. literacy)• different values (e.g. games/competitive

Winner: Do artifacts have politics? Endogenous: inherent in the technology

Strong form: required by the tech Weaker: strongly compatible with

Exogenous: reside in the users, not the tech

Middle way: the way tech is designed promotes some kinds of activity, values, power relations, and constrain others

Winner’s conclusion ‘Technologies:’ ways of building order in our world. Many tech devices and systems contain possibilities for many

different ways of ordering human activity. Society chooses structures for technologies that influence how

people are going to work, communicate, travel, consume…for a very long time Consciously or not, deliberately or inadvertently

In the processes by which decisions are made, different people are differently situated and possess unequal degrees of power and awareness.

Greatest latitude of choice exists when first introduced. Choices tend to become fixed in material equipment, economic investment, and social habit. Original flexibility vanishes once initial commitments made.

Tech innovations establish a framework for public order that endures across many generations.

-p. 33

Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)

Purpose Explain development of tech artifacts as alternating

processes of variation and selection Unpack the uncertainties, branchings, and decision

points in tech design Demonstrate that techs are socially constructed in

design as well as use Method

Identify & describe relevant social groups Sociologically deconstruct the artifact for each group Map mechanisms for stabilization of the artifact

Not perfect, but often useful

IT in groups and organizations

Factors influencing adoption and use of IT

IT as embedded in networks of practices and relations, social and organizational systems

Overview People are engaged in on-going work of

constructing shared understanding of the task Understanding of one another Group identity, behavior, norms The setting Ourselves Technology

• Meanings differ• We incorporate tech into on-going purposes

IT may introduce new possibilities and/or invalidate old ones

CSCW and CMC Online life not separate from offline Mechanisms important in offline life may

or may not translate to online And vice versa

The more we understand social activity, the more effectively we can Perform it Design and use tech to support it Understand when tech NOT the appropriate

solution

Orlikowski: Factors affecting IT use

Cognitive (individual) Mental models, tech frames

Structural (organizational) Rewards, incentives Policies

• Data confidentiality, quality, access control Firm culture, work norms, practices

Methods of introduction (organizational) Training, support, time for learning New tech frames

Emergent vs. planned change Orgs and practices change WITH tech

Olson & Olson on synchronous CMC in work Factors that promote effective use of

collaborative applications: Common ground: characteristic of

players Coupling: characteristic of the work Collaboration readiness (group/org) Technological readiness (group/org)

Questions re Internet Use How many/what percent use it How often, how much For what purposes From where (home, office, public-access

computer) Differences

by geography, demographics, other characteristics of interest

Differences that require public policy intervention?

Internet Use And society

E.g., where does the time come FROM? Are internet users more or less involved with

others, with community?• Effects of increased ability to interact only with people

we choose? Economic, political, educational, informational…

… And the individual

Educational, economic Psychological, social…recreational

And the family, group

Findings for US Dramatic increases in household internet

access and computer ownership 51% of households own computers 41.5% of households have internet access

Digital divide remains, difference in rates of access x demographic groups Use varies with education, income, age, and

racial /ethnic groups Correlated, but also have independent effects Central city residents and rural poor have

lowest access

Purposes of Internet Use(people age 3+) Email 84% Product/service info search 67% News, weather, sports 62% Playing games 42% Product/service purchase 39% Health info 35% Government info 31% School assignments 25%

--A Nation Online Figure 3-2

International Digital Divide Differences across as well as within

countries Implications for economies, political

systems, health, science…. Global engagement

Usability, user-centered design Concepts and methods of matching

design to users’ tasks, practices, settings, priorities, understandings

Technology design is work re-design How to design for innovation? Design as constituting the user:

“Designing” the person for whom tech is designed

The division of labor between system and user Uses methods of social science research

Research Methods Have to decide whether you believe

claims, what study actually shows, before you draw conclusions

Need to understand limits, appropriate inferences from study findings

Different methods appropriate for different questions, conditions, allow different kinds of conclusions

Methods I: case studies (Orlikowski) Pick one or a few interesting sites Interview, observe, collect evidence Advantages

In-depth investigation Participants’ own understandings

Limits: Applicability to other circumstances? Time frame? Hers mostly early in adoption

process. Relies at least partially on retrospective accounts

of participants

Methods II: lab study (Olson & Olson) Form a group, give them a task, let them

work a few hours or days, and collect data Observations, questionnaires, measurements

(e.g. how fast…) Advantages

Controls for extraneous factors Good opportunity for real-time observation

Limits Ecological validity? Artificial, disconnected task,

group, setting Short time frame

Methods III: Surveys Scale varies from small to (inter)national Advantages

Relatively easy to collect data from large #s With appropriate sampling methods, can make

inferences to larger population Limits

Limited to data can ask on questionnaires Each is a snapshot in time

• Change over time addressed via x-sectional studies Different methods >> different results

Skills in survey design, administration, analysis needed!

Ethics An issue where there is potential for harm The power of the IT/IS/IM professional >>

responsibilities Ethical codes play roles in

Informing, regulating behavior of professionals Informing clients, society of what they

can/should expect Social capital: built from on-going trusting

relationships

Critical Technical Practice

“A technical practice for which critical reflection upon the practice is part of the practice itself.” p. 307 in reader

“Rigorous reflection upon the technical ideas and practices becomes an integral part of day-to-day-technical work itself.” p. 3 in original

“Awareness of its own workings as a historically specific practice.” p. 23 in original