Users and Technology: Perspectives on Information Technology and Society Part II

1
Users and Technology Perspectives on
Information Technology and Society Part II
http//itb.isikun.edu.tr/en/bilimdali.php

• I203 Social and Organizational Issues of
  Information

2
Agenda

• Social Construction of Technology
• Actor-Network Theory
• Other Explanations for Technological Change

3
Next Week

• Tuesday, in-class discussion lead by Ashwin and
  Devin
• Implications of the Internet
• Small group discussion of paper topics,
  brainstorming
• Thursday
• No class, catch up on any readings and/or work on
  Assn1.

4
Main arguments of SCOT (review)

• Interpretive flexibility
• Different interpretations of same artifact by
  different social groups
• Stabilization
• Over time, negotiations lead to convergence.
• Closure
• Closure is a social process in which the
  technological artifact reaches a final,
  consensual form.

5
Relevant Social Groups in SCOT

• What is a relevant social group?
• all members of a social group share the same set
  of meanings, attached to a specific artifact
  (Pinch and Bijker 1987)
• Different groups may lead to different
  interpretations.
• Resulting technology is a negotiation between
  these groups.

6
Technological frames

• Technological frame A shared cognitive view that
  defines a relevant social group members with a
  shared technological frame have a common
  interpretation of an artifact.
• Goals
• Tacit knowledge
• Current/available theories
• Design methods
• (among other factors)
• Technological frame is similar to concept of the
  paradigm though not quite as broad.

7
Critiques of SCOT (selected)

• SCOT assumes equality of groups.
• Fails to recognize power dynamics between social
  actors, groups.
• Politically Insipid
• SCOT tends to avoid making, over-arching
  pronouncements for or against the particular
  technological developmentsbecause the
  researchers know enough to realize the
  complexities they are examining that the futility
  of trying to change the world by pronouncements.
• SCOT is a historical method, but history is
  tricky!
• The details of a technologys historical
  development heavily influence a SCOT analysis.
• Historical details are often contested.
• See Clayton, Nick. 2002. SCOT Does it Answer?
  Technology and Culture 43351-360.

8
Critiques of SCOT (selected)

• Over-emphasizes agency, under-emphasizes
  structure.
• Agency Ability to be in action or to exert power
• Structure Arrangement of parts that together
  form a whole The composition of a social group
  and the way it is organized.
• Fails to recognize the powerful influences of
  institutions and forces that are difficult to
  change, construct
• (e.g. political economy, social classes,
  geography, socio-demographic factors)
• We make our own world, but not exactly as we
  please. Jean Lave

9
Rosens Critique of SCOT The Social Construction
of the Mountain Bike
10
Determinism SCOT in Practice

• Both perspectives are extremes, hard to justify
  on their own.
• A moderate approach is reasonable, but arguably
  less exciting and certainly not any better at
  prediction.
• Where do we place the emphasis on the
  technology, or on the people?
• The POV you choose helps determine
• The problems you choose to research
• The methods you use
• Your analysis and interpretation of data (i.e.
  Agency)

11
Actor-Network Theory (ANT)

• Builds on ideas from SCOT acknowledges non-human
  elements in technological development.
• Originally credited to Michel Callon, Bruno
  Latour and John Law.
• Deals with processes by which scientific disputes
  become closed, ideas accepted, methods adopted.
• Mostly a qualitative approach following the
  actor, or following inscriptions (texts, images,
  databases, etc)

12
Vs.
13
Actor-Network Theory

• Human and Non-human elements are connected in a
  network that can be used to understand the
  competing influences on some outcome.
• Actor can be human or non-human.
• Humans
• Texts
• Technologies themselves

14
(No Transcript)
15
ANT applied to web services
16
Critiques of ANT

• How can inanimate objects have agency?
• Proponents say that they know that objects do not
  have intentional action
• Critics say that if you treat humans and objects
  exactly the same way, it leads to preposterous
  claims about the effect of technology
• What does it mean that an actor is simultaneously
  an actor and a network? How do you test and
  measure that?
• If every actor can be a network, how far does
  this logic go before we have a network that is
  too complex to even comprehend?

17
Other Economic and Sociological Explanations for
Technological Change

• Problems with neoclassical economic solutions to
  tech change and radical innovation
• Natural Trajectories and Self-fulfilling
  prophecies

18
Moores Law Example

• Since Intel was founded in 1969 by Robert
  Noyce and Gordon Moore, Moore's Law became a
  target that drove product development within the
  company. In fact, the entire semiconductor
  industry is striving to track Moore's curve the
  Semiconductor Industry Association puts together
  periodic "Technology Roadmaps" that were closely
  followed by the chip industry. These roadmaps,
  designed by technology working groups made up of
  leading industry experts, define in detail the
  course for future developments over a 15-year
  period, driven by the desire to continue the past
  trends of Moore's Law. In this way, Moore's Law
  has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
• -Mendelson, 1979

19
Other Economic and Sociological Explanations for
Technological Change

• Ethnoaccountancy
• Do accounting practices help guide innovation?

20
Assignment 1

• Available on Course Website