Xref: utzoo comp.groupware:613 comp.infosystems:285
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!ucivax!gateway
From: kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware,comp.infosystems
Subject: Re: Summary and review of ``Reading All About Computerization''
Message-ID: <9106212226.aa24424@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 22 Jun 91 05:26:09 GMT
Lines: 70


On  request, Mr. Eggert has suggested 6 questions one can ask about
a book or article. The are useful questions for some purposes, but don't
give much insight into the epistemological strengths and limitations of
an approach.  Moreover, few of them are pertinent to understanding key
assumptions/strengths/limitations of a SOCIAL analysis of the use or
consequences of some form of computerization.

Given Mr. Eggert's limitations, I encourage readers  to take some time
to examine the article for themselves. In my first reply I generously suggested that his summary was "consistent" with the article. This is not exactly true.
For example, he characterized my criticism of social realism  as a concern that
the accounts were too detailed. For simplicty, social relist acocunts are the
"you are there" approaches of good journalism and ethnography,
like "Soul of a New machine" (Tracy Kidder).
The details make the story ... and can vividly trigger readers'
insights through empathy. The details are a strength, inn my view.
The limitations which I described in "Readings ..." is that the
social realist  accounts are often too concrete .. authors don't usually
generalize beyond the development, use or impacts of a specific technology
in a given place and  time. While (anti)utopian accounts explicitlty examine
future possibilities, and social theory generalizes across cases,
social realism is locked into concerte instances.

I believe that social realist acocunts porvide useful bases for theorizing.
Unfortuately, there are few high quality social realist accounts of groupware.
(Exceptions include Chris Bullen and John Bennet's "Groupware in Practice")

Eggert's summaries of my characterization & views of other genres are also
off the mark.

Again, I suggest reading the article if you're curious rather than
relying upon Eggert's inaccurate "summary."

Best wishes,

Rob Kling


-----------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 03:08:14 GMT

Here are six schemes off the top of my
head, together with brief examples of their use.

expert vs novice _audience_
  One can usually ignore expert material if one is a novice, and vice versa.

expert vs novice _writer_
  One can usually ignore writers who know little about the subject.

policy vs mechanism vs verification
  Policy is ``What should the system do?''; mechanism is ``What
  technical means should it use?''; verification is ``How do we know
  the mechanism implements the policy?''.  These issues are all
  important at different stages of building a collaborative system;
  distinguishing them clarifies design and avoids pointless arguments.

short-term vs long-term view
  One can usually ignore old literature that talks about short-term issues.

technology-driven vs market-driven
  One can usually ignore market research if one is trying to derive
  a technological solution to a known problem; and vice versa.

Who is the sponsor?
  One should not be surprised when an author from organization X
  evaluates X's system positively.


------- End of Forwarded Message