Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: kling@ICS.UCI.EDU (Rob Kling) Newsgroups: comp.groupware Subject: Re: Basic Groupware/CSCW Questions Message-ID: <9103180701.aa04734@ICS.UCI.EDU> Date: 18 Mar 91 15:01:59 GMT Lines: 51 In-reply-to: Your message of 17 Mar 91 11:28:48 +0000. <5240@cuisun.unige.ch> Dear Simon, Thanks for your note. As I said, I read your article as AMBIVALENT about the value of social theory/social analysis. You've identified some of the observations in "Groupware: Some Issues and Experiences."< CACM 34(1)(Jan 1991):38-58> which support the value of social theory/social analysis. And there are others. On page 55 you note: "the system and the group are intimately interacting entities (p. 55)." The role of social theory is limited, at best, in the conception offered in your paper. On page 45, you treat "social theory" as sociology applied to design. This ignores the importance of "impacts studies" which would help potential adopters and users, as well as designers, understand the virtues and problematics of CSCW in use. For a comprehensive review of some of this literature, see "Technology and Groups: Assessments of Empirical Research" Kenneth L. Kraemer and Allain Pinsonneault. Chapter 14, Intellectual Teamwork. But I also see important elements in your paper which consistently question the value of social ANALYSIS. For example, you discuss 2 systems influenced by social theories, Quilt and Coordinator. And you simply observe that these systems make make additional & perhaps burdensome demands on users. I am *not* a fan of Coordinator. It is based on speech act theory, a philosophical theory of communication. There is **no** sound organizational sociology in speech act theory. You may believe that social theory/social analysis can can constructively inform CSCW designs. But the way you and your coauthors wrote these passages doesn't give the reader examples or ideas to illustrate your claims. Your passing examples undermine the value of having sound social analysis inform CSCW designs.. In another passage, you write that "social protocols" allow a system to be more adaptive to a group's preferences. You quickly qualify this observation by noting that social protocols (e.g., leaders sets agenda and sums up a meeting) can be unfair. What is left unsaid that it is technologically **impossible* and *unlikely* that one would build unfair technical protocols. (grin). I read this passage as indicating how technology is necessarily "good" and "the social" may be bad. I realize that you may not have intended these interpretations. For my CSCW seminar I carefully read your paper for your approach to social aspects of CSCW. I found that you clearly treated CSCW as embedded in groups and said some priaseworthy general things about the value of social analysis. But you examples tended to undermine your general claims. Perhaps unintended. But now you're in print with 75,000 copies of that CACM issue circulating worldwide. Best wishes, Rob Kling