huff@stolaf.edu (Chuck Huff) (06/27/91)
> Review: Kling favors (4) and (5), areas to which he has contributed. > But he gives little evidence that these writings produce new insights. > Instead, they merely restate commonsense ideas using academic jargon. > People involved with computerization might find it more useful to read > the primary sources for (1) through (3), and then think about the big > picture themselves. The complaint that social science research and theory "merely restate[s] commonsense ideas using academic jargon" is a longstanding and usually false one. Much commonsense can explain either side of an issue with equal force: "technology will alienate people - you only get to see a screen, not a real person" and "technology will connect people - you get to talk to folks you may never meet in other ways." Good social science research can help identify the conditions under which each of these commonsense ideas are likely to be true. Sara Kiesler, Lee Sproull, & her colleagues have done research on the "alienate/connect" question and have some useful findings. The recent debate about gender & computing in comp.risks could have benefited from a review of the social science research in the area (I was on vacation and returned too late to provide one). The "optimist" and "pessimist" literature is mostly a waste of time, since it usually tars all technology with the same brush; it is unwilling to concede that technology might be helpful in some implementations and situations and harmful in others. The "reportorial" literature is helpful for nice anecdotes, but the authors in this literature usually make much to broad and sweeping generalizations from their meager observations. The advantage of "optimist," "pessimist," and "reportorial" literature is that it will tell you what decision to make _now_. The disadvantage is that it has an unknown but possibly large chance of leading you astray. The disadvantage of social science literature is that its authors (usually) are very careful about generalizing beyond their data and will thus give you only minimal help in your particular situation. The advantage is that it has a better chance of being correct (whatever that means) in its limited claims. If you have time, read some of each kind of literature (Kling's reader may be helpful here, and there are others). If not, read some of the reviews of the social science literature and then make your best informed guess. Chuck Huff