Social Informatics

From GSLISWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

see also: Theories Related to Social Informatics

Disclaimer: This is probably more a definition of Social Informatics as it is practiced in GSLIS, rather than an authoritative definition.

Rob Kling (1999), the father of Social Informatics, defines it in the following manner:

A serviceable working conception of "social informatics" is that it identifies a body of research that examines the social aspects of computerization. A more formal definition is "the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of information technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts."
It is a field that is defined by its topic (and fundamental questions about it) rather than by a family of methods, much like urban studies or gerontology. Social informatics has been a subject of systematic analytical and critical research for the last 25 years. This body of research has developed theories and findings that are pertinent to understanding the design, development, and operation of usable information systems, including intranets, electronic forums, digital libraries and electronic journals. (Kling 1999, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html)

Thus, social informatics as an area of research seeks to understand the way information and communication systems and technologies shape and are shaped by the social context of their creation and use.

Many different kinds of research questions can be reframed in terms of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) and social factors, and such framing would lend itself to analysis from a Social Informatics (SI) perspective. However, the key concept in SI is that of a (holistic) sociotechnical system, and this concept can be applied to more than just information systems. The idea behind sociotechnical systems is that no system can be isolated from its context. Thus, no piece of technology can be understood or optimized without understanding the social system in which it is embedded, and no social system can be understood or optimized without understanding the technical infrastructure in which is exists. Technology here is defined to include non-electronic, non-computational technology, including pencils, tables, buildings, etc. And some would go as far as to include natural objects such as a rock or the environment. The point is that everything affects everything, and you bound your area of study to a piece of software or an organizational hierarchy at your own peril.

The SI perspective generally brings several advantages to the study of sociotechnical systems. However, the field is so intentionally broad and interdisciplinary, that the following list of advantages should be understood as my interpretation of common tendencies, rather than a definitive characterization.

  • SI foregrounds interactions and aspects of the system which are typically ignored or overlooked. Thus, concepts such as invisible work (the work you must do which is not explicit in your job description, and usually is not acknowledged by your superiors as important, yet is vital to getting your job done), and infrastructure (the technology, structures, etc., which are taken for granted until they break down) are of vital importance, because they prevent you from inadvertently missing key pieces of the puzzle.
  • SI focuses on "how" questions. It is not enough to describe what is happening, or superficially describe why; instead, one must describe *how* it happens (i.e., how each component of what happens interacts with every other component--some people like to use actor-network theory to accomplish this; I'm still not convinced it is the best approach).
  • SI focuses on understanding things as a continual, evolving, ever-changing process, rather than as a series of events, a set of items, or a series of static instances which occur sequentially in time.
  • SI is flexible as to what lens is used to understand particular situations, however. Thus, the more atomistic view of a series of things interacting which is used by Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) researchers and people who use Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is as accepted as the more systems point of view held by people who practice Social Network Analysis (SNA) or work with Multi-Agent Systems.
  • SI takes a realistic perspective, and tries to avoid ideologies or judgments. It explicitly does *not* see computing technology as either good or bad, beneficial or detrimental, but rather as a reality that is constructed from knowledge and cultural practices, and when applied, has certain effects. The judgement is left for people to make on the cultural values from which it emerges, or the value (or damage) of the effects.


[edit] Types of Studies and Research Questions

There are, in general, three types of SI studies:

  • Descriptive studies: Studies which describe what is happening in an existing sociotechnical system, and how it is happening.
    • These studies are normally confined to particular organizations, whether large or small, independent or dependent.
  • Critical studies: Studies which critique existing sociotechnical systems, point out where there are problems and why, and sometimes suggest methods by which these systems can be improved.
    • These studies can range from studying a particular organization, to studying a nation, or a larger society as a whole (Western society, say).
  • Design studies: Studies which explore how to use concepts from Social Informatics in Design to build new sociotechnical systems, or to improve the processes or structures in existing sociotechnical systems.
    • These studies tend to be limited to a specific organization, and rarely take on anything that is large in scale.

SI Studies explore what pre-existing practices in information and communication produce particular designs and uses of information systems, how invisible technical and social infrastructures facilitate or limit access to information resources, and how anticipated and unanticipated appropriations of technology lead to new uses and practices. A further aspect of the field is the exploitation of information technology as a tool to understand social relationships. Research includes both descriptive and analytic accounts of these relationships as well as studies of ethical and policy questions. Since information systems pre-date computing technology, the field considers historical and philosophical foundations as well.

Example questions include:

  • How do groups, organizations, and communities use informations systems to address their problems?
  • How can we account for the complexity and diversity of distributed, collective practice?
  • What tools are needed to mediate work on concrete tasks within communities?
  • What is the most effective process for developing shared capacity in the form of knowledge, skills, & tools?
  • How can we best conceive the relationships among digital and other technologies, information, communication, and organizations?
  • How does talking through computer media change perceptions of others, and the bases of community?

Specific topic areas include: community informatics; distributed collective practice; collaboration systems for online work, learning, and knowledge distribution; e-learning in school, university, corporate, and lifelong learning settings; educational informatics; information technology applied to societal problems; social impacts of technologies; equitable access and social justice; new literacies; evaluation of emerging technologies; studies of appropriation and diffusion of technologies.



[edit] Related Links

[edit] Works Cited

  • Trist, E. L.; Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4(1), 3-28.
Retrieved from "http://www.gslis.org/wiki/Social_Informatics"
Personal tools