USERS AND TECHNOLOGY: PERSPECTIVES ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND
SOCIETY PART II I203 Social and Organizational Issues of
Information Slide 2 2 Agenda Social Construction of Technology
Actor-Network Theory Other Explanations for Technological Change
Slide 3 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. Slide 4 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. Slide 5 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. Slide 6
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. Slide 7 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 43:351-360. Slide 8 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 Slide 9 9 Rosens Critique of SCOT: The Social
Construction of the Mountain Bike Slide 10 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) Slide 11 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) Slide 12 12 Vs. Slide 13 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
Slide 14 Slide 15 15 ANT applied to web services Slide 16 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? Slide 17 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
Slide 18 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 Slide
19 19 Other Economic and Sociological Explanations for
Technological Change Ethnoaccountancy Do accounting practices help
guide innovation? Slide 20 20 Assignment #1 Available on Course
Website:
