eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) (06/16/91)
[This repeats an article with the same title posted to comp.groupware. Sorry about the repetition instead of a crosspost as it should be; Kling's original article had the same problem, and this messed up my followup.] Summary: Rob Kling's article ``Reading All About Computerization'' says that writings about computing generally fall into the following classes: (1) _Utopian_ writings, the majority, argue or assume that life will be better if we use new computing technology. (2) _Anti-utopian_ writings say it'll be worse. Both (1) and (2) oversimplify reality. (3) _Social realism_ reports real observations about computing, but it is too detailed. This is typical for journalists. (4) _Social theory_ is more abstract, e.g. web models say you have to study the whole social system, not just computers separately. (5) _Analytical reductionism_ reduces everything to a few key concepts; this is controversial. 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. Groupware innovators and users might find it more useful to read the primary sources for (1) through (3), and then think about the big picture themselves.
kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) (06/17/91)
Paul, Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, your comments FUNDAMENTALLY miss the main point of the paper, as I see it. Your comments are consistent with the paper, but really ignore the issue of genres, genre conventions & the limitations of the conventions. I believe that the (anti)utopoian genres offer interesting kinds of insights, but they are mislead in important ways, in the same sense that the combination of romantic comedy & tragedy have much to teach us, but also ... by their conventions... leave out a great deal that is important about "daily life." For example, there is little negiotiation and accomodation in romantic comedy or tragedy ... an absense that helps heighten the intensity of comic situations of tragic confrontations. Similarly, the utopian and anti-utopian genres ignore important elments of day to day compterization (eg., mediocre training, annoying system bugs) that can shape system use patterns and resultant social consequences. On the other hand, the utopian genres are literatures of possibility: they can inspire or apall us and dramatize hopes and fears in ways that go well beyond the dramas of "la vie quotidien." If you read my paper carefully, then I have not done a sufficient job of making these ideas about genre conventions clear. I appreciate your taking time to send me your comments. I will reread the paper to make sure that my key ideas do stand out. /Rob
eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) (06/19/91)
Perhaps my review was too terse. Partly this was because the paper was misplaced in comp.groupware. But even on its own terms, the paper is weak. E.g.: Its whole idea of genres is overblown: for people trying to understand computerization issues, knowing the ``genre'' of a computerization book is like knowing the color of its cover -- useful at times but quite secondary, really. Even assuming the idea of genres is important, why is the paper's classification better than any of the half dozen others that come to mind? Even assuming the paper's classification is worthy, everybody knows that writers have axes to grind; adult readers are used to taking writers' motivations into account. Saying ``Look at the genres!'' tells readers nothing they do not already know. Even assuming the paper's main point is novel, the paper does not justify its conclusion that social theorists and the like write ``discourses whose claims as valid knowledge are strongest'' and that only their jargon and abstruseness prevent wider acceptance. From the little evidence given in the paper, one might just as easily conclude that social theorists of computerization are ignored because they cannot predict their way out of a paper bag.
kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) (06/20/91)
Dear Paul, Thanks for your note. It is virtually impossible to respond substantively to comments which simply criticize a piece of work without any clear reference point. I agree with you that *you* don't see the point of the paper (and the virtue of knowing about the genre of specific social analyses of computerization). But aside from slightly slanderous comments, you don't give readers (or me) any evidence, let alone serious evidence, for your haughty opinions. I am very curious to know which "half dozen other" classification schemes you actually find much more useful, and specificlly in what ways and why. I believe that "Reading 'All About' Computerization is highly relevent to people interested in CSCW/groupware, partly because of its general argument and partly because of the examples. Some of these cover certain kinds of groupware (group calendars), but themes are much more general. The point of knowing the genre of a book or article is that of being more able to readily identify key potential strengths and blindspots in a style of analysis. Further, for people who are trying to organize bodies of literature for courses, reading lists, literature suvreys, etc., genres provide one way of appreciating which epistemological (in constrast with topical) bases they have covered. These are not the only uses, but they are important ones for which a classification scheme about the kinds of insight and blind spots a style of analysis about computerization can be useful. In my view, a large fraction of the literature about computerization has important technologically utopian themes which readers often do not recognize ... for the kinds of hopes they inspire and themes which they ignore. The issues are important. I've recently been reading parts of the literature on telecommuting in prpeartion for a plenary talk at a conference on telecommuting as a way of reducing energy use and traffic congestion in major urban areas. The literaure has lots of themes. But one important issue that drives some analyses is the belief that "telcommuting will really take off" when some specific enabling technologies are better developed (e.g., teleconferencing) or widepread (e.g., ISDN). I think that much hinges on arguments of this kind, and (unfortunately) many of them are cast within the limitations of technologicaly utopian arguments. I'm a fan of telecommuting; but see real problems with this style of argument dominating the technological analyses in the telecommuting literature. This is just one example. I encourage people who are scanning this debate to read "Reading 'All About' Computerization" for themeselves, and to suggest serious alternative analytical vantage points if they find the paper unconvincing. Rob Kling
eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) (06/22/91)
>I am very curious to know which "half dozen other" >classification schemes you actually find much more useful, >and specificlly in what ways and why. I didn't say ``much more useful'', I just asked why the paper's classification was any better. 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.
eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) (06/22/91)
kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) writes: >But aside from slightly slanderous >comments, you don't give readers (or me) any evidence, >let alone serious evidence, for your haughty opinions. The burden of proof is upon the original author, not the critic. I have already spent too much time writing about this topic, and an even more detailed rebuttal would give the original paper an appearance of importance than it does not deserve. When the author's best defense is to challenge the critic to do better, it is time to rethink the paper. As for ``haughty opinions'', the original paper smiles indulgently at the ``fatal flaw of utopian'' writers who want to change the world, and reserves nearly unqualified approval for social theorists because their ``claims as valid knowledge are strongest''. Now _that_ is haughtiness!
kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) (06/22/91)
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