Social Informatics: An Explanation of Sorts

There is a lot of speculation about the social changes that might arise when new ICTs are to become widespread (Kling, 2000). Questions about the consequences of new technologies are often posed in a very black and white manner. For instance: Will e-voting increase voter turnout? People expect a straightforward ‘yes-or-no’ answer. However, life is not that simple, and usually there are no clear-cut answers. Therefore, the social changes that might occur because of the implementation of new and complex information and communication technologies (ICTs) need to be analytically and empirically researched.

When researching new technologies it is important to clarify how far technology does, or does not, condition social change. Can the social changes associated with the use of new ICTs have been caused by information technology? Are they developing as a largely independent force? Or should the changes be viewed as more fundamentally determined by other, non-technological, social forces? Many different perspectives and theories are used to examine the relationship between technology and society.

According to Chandler (1995) ‘technological determinism’ is “still the most popular and influential theory of the relationship between technology and society”. Technological determinism suggests that technology is the driving force for social and cultural change (Humphreys, 2004). And, with every new cycle of technological innovation, we are flooded with studies from a technological deterministic perspective (Monge & Contractor, 2003).

In the past 25 years the focus has begun to shift from a technological deterministic perspective towards this ‘social constructivism’ perspective. Technology is not defined solely as an object or tool, but also encompasses human knowledge and technique, and the forms of social relations within which these are used (MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1985). Scholars working in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) are concerned with the way organisational, political, economic and cultural factors influence the process of technological innovation and change. To understand technology development and use, STS researchers consider both social and technical aspects as mutually constructive; as they are against substituting one form of determinism with another (Horton and Davenport, 2005). STS is not a unified body of theoretical approaches. Bijker, Hughes and Pinch (1987) identify three main theories within STS: the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), the Systems Theory, and the Actor-Network Theory (ANT).

An alternative way to investigate the roles of ICTs in a systematic, empirically grounded, and theoretically informed way is to use the Social Informatics (SI) approach[1]. Although at first sight, Social Informatics looks quite similar to the Social Constructivist approach, it differs in a number of important aspects. These differences will be discussed.

‘Social Informatics’ is defined as “the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of ICTs that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural context” (Kling et al., 2000). The aim of SI is not only to enlarge academic understanding of ICTs, but also to inform public policy debates and professional practice.

The Social Informatics approach helps to address some of the limitations of the Social Constructivism theory. Nevertheless, Social Informatics uses a lot of the same notions, concepts and definitions as the above mentioned theory of Social Constructivism. For instance, Social Informatics research shows how technological determinism is based on an analytical failure, and SI research is therefore based on the concept that ICT is socially shaped (Kling, 2000: 219). In the following paragraphs I will describe six of the main differences between Social Constructivism and Social Informatics.

Although the Social Informatics approach borrows a lot from SCOT, ANT and the Systems Theory, it also tries to address most of their shortcomings. Unlike the other described approaches, Social Informatics is deeply concerned with the context in which each new technology appears (Kling, 2000). The main idea behind Social Informatics research is that ICTs do not exist in social or technological isolation (Kling et al., 2000). “One key idea of social informatics research is that the social context of information technology development and use plays a significant role in influencing the ways in which people use information and technologies, and thus affects the consequences of the technology for work, organisations and other social relationships. Social context does not refer to some abstract cloud that hovers above people and information technology; it refers to a specific matrix of social relationships” (Kling, 2000: 225). Contextual analysis looks at the larger framework of which technology development is a part. It focuses on the economic, technological, social, cultural and organisational conditions. It investigates the relations between systems development on the one hand, and decision making, power structures, legislation, learning effects, organisational aspects, media influence on the other. However, it takes careful analysis to specify appropriately what “the context” means for a particular situation (Kling, 1987).

Second, Social Informatics focuses on both macro- and micro-levels of analysis. This differs from Social Constructivism which concentrates more on micro-studies. Robbin (2005) draws attention to Kling’s core sociological concepts of: “context, social situation, embeddedness, identity, role, and authority (power); the influence of history on thought and action; the dynamics, contingencies, fluidity, and uncertainty of the outcomes of social relations; social relations as a negotiated order that assumes cooperation but also acknowledges conflict over goals; and the individual as a reflexive social actor with “interests” who acted strategically”.

Thirdly, Social Informatics is related to ‘design oriented research’ and ‘constructive technology assessment’ (Van den Besselaar and Rip, 1987; Deay Ouwens et al, 1987; Rip et al., 1995; Van den Besselaar, 1996; Schot and Rip, 1997). It is concerned with addressing ICTs and their impact when significant opportunities to shape these network-enabled activities still exist (Kling, 2000). This is in contrast to the Social Constructionist theories which all have the tendency to look at technology development from a historical viewpoint. This means that decisions, problems, mistakes and trajectories are explained and reflected upon with hindsight. Social Informatics researchers on the other hand can participate from the start of a technological project, making it possible to use their insights to influence the design and implementation of new applications and systems.

A fourth difference between the Social Informatics and Social Constructivism approach is effectively captured in the following quote by Kling:

“One of the fascinating and important sociological questions surrounding computerization is the extent to which the use of computer-based systems really transforms any part of the social order – and if so, how? Answers to this question rest heavily on the way computer-based systems are consumed – not just produced or disseminated. This question differs from the central focus of the sociology of technology on the conditions that produce differing technologies and the character of technological alternatives (e.g. Bijker, Hughes, and Pinch, 1987). In my view, it is a fundamental question, since social studies of technology gain their public value by shedding light on the consequences of social groups using various technologies. Moreover, if we want technologists to take the social consequences of their designs into account, some group should be producing reliable studies to help inform their actions” (Kling, 1991: 342-343).

Instead of solely investigating new technologies during their design and development phase, it is important to also examine what happens to the relationship between technology and society after this phase, when the technologies are consumed. In other words, one should not assume that technologies become stabilized artefacts after their design. The design process is not finished after implementation.[2] Although the Social Constructivist theory does pay attention to the appropriation of technology by users, it only does so for a limited time. McLaughlin and Skinner (2000) also noted that the discussion of the social construction of ICTs has focused largely on the design process and has paid little attention to the shaping of the developed ICTs after they are adopted. It is only a recent development that “there is a growing interest in what happens when and after a technology is introduced […]” (ibid. 413). Social informaticians stress that attention should be paid not only to the early design process, but also to the actual use of the technology innovation over a longer period of time. This kind of research is more fundamental than ‘configuring’ or ‘tailoring’ a system to individual users’ needs prior to implementation. In other words, there should be more focus on the way that users interact with new technologies and reshape them in medium- and long-term use, and how this interaction can inform systems development.

A fifth important difference between Social Constructivists and researchers in the field of Social Informatics is that the latter see more value in problem-driven (rather than theory-driven) research. In this respect, social informatics is characterized by the problems being examined rather than by the theories or methods used in a research study (Kling et al., 2000). Sawyer puts it like this: “[…] social informatics is problem-oriented. This work is defined by its interest in particular issues and problems with computerization and not by its adherence to certain theories or particular methods” (2005). The problem-driven approach gives researchers the opportunity to use more than just one rigid theory. Consequently, research in the SI field is multi-theoretical and interdisciplinary. The researchers not only rely on different theories, but also use a wide range of methodological approaches to study social aspects of ICT design, use and consequences. Examples of these methodologies include ethnographic studies of work practices, participatory design, social histories of information technology and action research. The research in this dissertation is also based on a multi-method strategy and applies different theories.

Finally, Social Informatics places a great emphasis on public debate. A critique on Social Constructivism is that they do not engage enough in practical nor in public debates. This allows the powerful, and those with vested interests to dominate public debate about technology, since the most powerful voices in debates about computerization are the designers, sellers, and government agencies directly involved (Kling, 1992). Kling criticizes Social Constructivism by saying that: “Sociologists of technology can do much to improve the quality of debate and discourse about the deployment of computerized systems and other potentially powerful technologies” (Kling, 1992: 351). It is important to get involved in public debates, because the debates about the social roles of technologies sometimes ignore relationships that are recognized as being very important by social analysts. Kling and Iacono (1990) point out that computer-based technologies are potentially transformative. Computerization can raise questions about social choices and value conflicts which the participants do not always seem to understand very well, and the contribution of scholars is to articulate these social choices (Kling, 1991: 344). Therefore, social scientists have the responsibility not only to study the use and social consequences of technological developments, but also to talk about them and not stay ‘needlessly mute’ (Kling, 1992: 354).

Even though the actual name of the approach is relatively new, Social Informatics research has already been taking place throughout the 1970s and 1980s by studies that have been labelled as Social Impacts of Computing, studies of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), and Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). Researchers changed their views during the 1970s from viewing ICT as having a direct impact (technological determinism) to the insight that the impacts of ICT are socially shaped. “In the standard (non-social informatics) accounts of ICT and social change, it is common to hear information technologies characterized as tools, and questions are asked about their social impacts” (Kling, 2000: 219). The standard tool model underestimates the complexities and costs of computerization and overestimates the generalisability of applications from one setting or group of individuals to another. Figure 1.1 shows the differences between the standard models and the social informatics model in which computerized information systems are conceptualized as “socio-technical networks”.

Figure 1.1 Standard models versus socio-technical models (source Kling, 2000: 220)

From a Social informatics perspective, one wants to work out problems of stability, change, and transformation in society and its institutions that were induced by ICT adoption (Robbin, 2005). The focus is on questions such as “What kinds of impacts do computer-based information systems have upon public agencies and the polity?”; “What influences the adoption of new computer-based technologies?”; “How are particular computer-based technologies ordinarily introduced”; and “What are the social consequences of using computer based technologies?” (Kling, 1987 in Robbin, 2005). Social informatics also tries to correct traditional techno-centred theoretical approaches, which suggest that technology shapes organisational practices in a deterministic and uni-directional causal direction. Yet, observations and multiple theoretical perspectives show that technology adoption is a “problematic and complex, contingent process, one that is mediated by history, context, structure and agency, culture and meaning systems, symbolic and material interests and resources, and political and social processes” (Robbin, 2005). Unlike the techno-centred approaches of many computer professionals, Social Informatics theories are not based on a simplified conception of computing and social life, but explain socially complex technologies more adequately. Kling argues that the conventional theories “drew a priori boundaries around direct computer-based systems and immediate users, their work groups, or at formal organisational boundaries that often fail[ed] to capture important social relationships which influence[d] the development and use of computer-based systems” (Kling 1987, in Robbin 2005). Figure 1.2 summarizes the key issues Social Informatics studies focus on.

* The context of ICT use directly affects their meanings and roles.
* ICTs are not value neutral: their use creates winners and losers.
* ICT use leads to multiple, and often paradoxical, effects.
* ICT use has moral and ethical aspects and these have social consequences.
* ICTs are configurable – they are actually collections of distinct components.
* ICTs follow trajectories and these trajectories often favour the status quo.
* ICTs co-evolve during design/development/use (before and after implementation)

There are three basic orientations in Social Informatics (Kling et al., 2000). The first orientation is the normative one in which research aims to recommend alternatives for professionals who design, implement, use or make policy about information and communication technologies (Lamb and Sawyer, 2005). The goal of this type of research is to influence practice by providing empirical evidence. This empirical evidence is often based on participatory design research in which users are observed and asked about the ways they understand, use and adapt new systems. The second Social Informatics research orientation is analytical, which refers to studies that develop theories about ICTs in institutional and cultural contexts or to empirical studies that are organised to contribute to such theorizing. “This type of research seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of how the evolution of information and communication technologies’ uses in a particular setting can be generalized to other systems and other settings” (Lamb and Sawyer, 2005: 5). Finally, there is the critical orientation of Social Informatics research which encourages researchers to examine ICTs from multiple perspectives, such as from those of the various people who use them, as well as people who design, implement and maintain them. A critical approach to Social Informatics demands the work to be situated (contextual), empirical, and reflect social actor principles.

Notes

[1] One may also describe the difference between the two perspectives in terms of the New Production of Knowledge (Gibbons et al., 1994): social constructivism belongs to traditional mode-1 academic research, while social informatics belongs to the mode-2 fields, in which the production of knowledge generally is interdisciplinary and embedded in application contexts. We do not pursue this discussion further in this text.

[2] This is an issue also discussed in innovation theory, where it is emphasized that the innovation process continues during the diffusion phase (Rosenberg 1982). Sometimes the concept of innofusion is used in this context (Williams et al., 2005)

Bijker, W., T. Hughes and T. Pinch (2001) The Social Construction of Technology Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (reprint of the 1987 edition). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Deay Ouwens, C. , P. van Hoogstraten, J. Jelsma, F. Prakke and A. Rip (1987) Constructive Technology Assessment. Den Haag: NOTA.

Horton, K. and E. Davenport (2005) Exploring socio-technical interaction with Rob Kling: five “big” ideas. Information Technology & People. Vol.18 No 1, 2005 pp 50-67.

Kling, R. (1987) Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organisations. In Critical issues in information systems, Boland, R. and R. Hirschheim (eds.), pp. 307-362. London: John Wiley.

Kling, R. (1991) Computerization and Social Transformations. Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol 16, No.3 pp 342-367.

Kling, R. (1992) Audiences, Narratives, and Human Values in Social Studies of Technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol 17, No.3 pp 349-365.

Kling, R. And Iacono, S. (1995) Computerization movements and the mobilization of support for computerization. In Star, E.D. (ed.) Ecologies of Knowledge. Pp. 119-153. New York: SUNY Press.

Kling, R. (1999). What is Social Informatics and Why Does it Matter? D-Lib Magazine (5:1) 1999.

Kling, R., Crawford, H., Rosenbaum, H., Sawyer, S., & Weisband, S. (2000). Learning from Social Informatics: Information and Communication Technologies in Human Contexts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

Kling, R. (2000) Learning about Information Technologies and Social Change: the contribution of Social Informatics. The Information Society, 16 (2000) pp. 216-232.

Lamb, R. and Sawyer, S. (2005) On Extending Social Informatics from a Rich Legacy of Networks and Conceptual Resources. In: Gedenkschrift for Rob Kling Special Issue of Information Technology and People Vol. 18 (1).

MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology, 2^nd edition, Buckingham: Open University Press.

McLaughlin, J. and D. Skinner (2000) Developing Usability and Utility: A Comparative Study of the Users of New IT. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 413-423.

Monge, P. and Contractor, N (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rip, A., T. Misa and J. Schot (1995) Managing technology in society. London: Pinter.

Robbin, A. (2005) Rob Kling In Search of One Good Theory: The Origins of Computerization Movements. Social Informatics: an information society for all? An International Conference in Remembrance of Rob Kling. Social Informatics Workshop, September 2006.

Sawyer, S. (2005) Social Informatics: Overview, Principles and Opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 31, No. 5.

Schot, J. and A. Rip (1997) The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 54, Number 2, February 1997, pp. 251-268(18).

Van den Besselaar, P. and A. Rip (1987) Onderzoeksprogramma Technology Assessment. Amsterdam: SWI.

Van den Besselaar (1996) Studies in Social Aspects of Information Technology. PhD, Thesis. University of Amsterdam.