View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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