Recap IS204 Fall 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+) 84% Product/service info search67% News, weather, sports62% Playing games42% Product/service purchase39% Health info35% Government info31% School assignments25% --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