We've seen how the "information society" concept, despite its popularity, is limited and how a "knowledge society" might be a better label that includes context. There is, however, a third alternative, proposed by one of the most influential scholars in the subject, Manuel Castells, which is the "informational society". Castells has published already three editions of his gigantic three-volume work "The Information Age" where he established the informational society as more meaningful and radical than the information society. He compares this to the industrial society to indicate that we don't say the "industry society" (one in which society uses industry or in which industry is present), but rather an industrial society which is modeled according to an industrial mode of development. In the same way, the informational society indicates a society shaped according to the interaction between ICT and economy, culture and politics; rather than an "information society" which might only indicate a society where ICT is present and influential.
Moreover, this "informationalism" also agrees with ALAI in that it is by nature a capitalist model of society. In other words, we are speaking about informational capitalism, where informationalism is the mode of development and capitalism is the mode of production. Informationalism is linked to the expansion and rejuvenation of capitalism on a global scale: flexibility in management, decentralization of firms, empowering of capital as opposed to labor, increasing individualization and diversification of working relationships, massive incorporation of women to the labor force, deregulation of markets, and undoing of the welfare state. This, of course implies also that the capitalist mode of production shapes social relationships over the entire planet, and accordingly that socialism ans statism are not part of this informational society. This is due in part to the failure of socialist countries to embrace emerging ICT at the right time, but also to the fact that informationalism and capitalism fit each other better.
However, Castells does not go as far as ALAI in saying that this is a result of an hegemonic imperialistic project. Though the Internet did indeed stem from a military-industrial complex during the Cold War, it did not grow into a global phenomenon until 20 years later. In fact, Castells is clear in saying that no country (nor society as a whole) can determine technology; it is, as we have discussed earlier, a mutually interrelated evolutionary process. The notion of an American Empire can thus be critically re-examined in Anotnio Negri's terms as a simplification of the real Empire which goes well beyond the USA. Indeed, for Negri the US, as well as the rest of us, are all "within Empire", indicating this globalization of a capitalist mode of production tahat acts, as Castells would say as a "global automaton" which cannot be controlled by any given nation-state (in fact, one of the consequences of the informational society is the decline of the nation-state or of its capacity to control and regulate social action). Accordingly, there is increasing consensus that the era of superpowers is over because it belongs to the "industrial society". Neither China, nor Europe, nor any of the emerging countries will take over the position of the US in this new multi-polar informational society.
The "network society" then enters the picture because the structure of the informational society, its shape and properties, are based on (or rather result in) a network model. This (open and dynamic) network is a natural instrument for a capitalist economy based on innovation, globalization and decentralization, where the power of flows replaces the flows of power. But this network has also contributed to restructuring capitalism itself. Instead of the traditional mode of capitalism where capitalists are the owners of the modes of production, today we have many different capitalists at different places and with different roles: corporate managers, the bourgeoisie, bankers, speculators, entrepreneurs, tycoons, public corporations and even mafia organizations. It is a "faceless collective capitalist", rather than a class. Accordingly, in Castells view, it cannot be identified, it cannot be fought, it cannot be regulated. The financial crisis that erupted in 2008 is a clear example of this which Castells uses to prove that his original ideas (from the 1996 1st edition) still hold in his latest 2010 edition.
He still, however, believes in the role of civil society and in the influence of rational meaningful social action. For example, he points out the feminization of the work force and the reduction of the digital divide in recent years (through it is still a huge gap as we saw using the ICT Development Index figures from the ITU). Rather than assuming that the trend indicates the already discussed "end of history", Castells says that "history is just beginning". The problem, though, is that we are not sure where it is heading, so the first step is to understand it if we want to influence its evolution towards the benefit of humanity.
viernes, 25 de febrero de 2011
miércoles, 16 de febrero de 2011
From an information to a knowledge society (Feb. 15)
Today we debated whether the "information society" is a worthy frame of development, especially for Latin America. Half the group represented the point of view of the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA, or CEPAL in Spanish) as expressed in the book by Katz and Hilbert ("Los caminos hacia una sociedad de la información en América Latina y el Caribe", 2003). The other half represented the point of view of the Latin American Information Agency (ALAI) as expressed in the book by Burch et al. ("Se Cayó el Sistema", 2003).
CEPAL's view of the information society may be seen as the "official" version aimed at policy makers, where ICT is understood as a source of economic and social development. In order for Latin America to become integrated into the information society, they recommend considering three kinds of prerequisites. First of all, there is the ICT infrastructure itself (TV, telephone, fiber optics, and wireless networks) together with the generic service applications that run on top of it (software, browsers, remote storage, etc.). Second, there are vertical sectors which use the infrastructure and services to become digital: e-commerce, e-government, e-health, e-learning, ... Third, there are diagonal areas which establish the rules and resources: regulation, finance and human capital. The starting point is a recognition of the digital divide (understood as the dividing line between those who benefit and those who do not benefit from ICT) as it is especially pronounced in Latin America. Thus, they recommend generating public policy which can reduce this gap by placing the emphasis on the individual and the community in order to reap benefits in terms of: economic development (productivity and competitiveness), social development (learning, health, culture), poverty reduction (sanitary assistance, early warning systems) and political participation (human rights, freedom of speech). The key, they argue is striking a balance between areas that may be in conflict (for example, using ICT for economic development may not be aligned with using it for democratic participation). What's not to like?
Well, the ALAI holds a more pessimistic (dare I say, paranoid?) view of the information society. They start by retracing the origins of the Internet as tied to the hegemonic, imperialistic aims of the United States of America. The military provenance of the original Arpanet during the Cold War was motivated by the need to have a resilient network in case of a nuclear attack. But they go beyond the technology itself making a well-known connection between ICT and globalization (where it is not clear which is the the enabler of the other). This means that the "information society" in ALAI's view is based on an instrumental notion of information which goes hand in hand with similar models of society, such as the "post-industrial society" or the "service economy". These views are connected to the ideas of the "end of ideology" (from the recently deceased Daniel Bell) and the "end of history" (Francis Fukuyama), according to which the end of the Cold War signals a significant step in the linear progression towards a new global information society where humanity converges into a unique, neutral, apolitical and technological project. ALAI, of course, holds that this covers up for the real strategic, geopolitical, unipolar aims of the information society, where all countries and peoples are to be absorbed under the values of the market democracy and specifically the neoliberal ideas contained in the Washington Consensus (liberalized trade, privatization, deregulation, reduction of the size of the state, labor market flexibility and the protection of private property, among others). As such, the digital divide is used to cover up what is in fact a social divide and ICT is seen as a solution to this problem, when in actuality it perpetuates these inequalities by embodying an unfair development model. Moreover, ICT can actually be used for exploitation, surveillance and social control. For example, the fact that we aim for increasing access to ICT needs to be coupled to the quick obsolescence of such ICT, making Latin American countries dependent upon every new technological configuration which is sold and controlled by foreign companies. The fact that public policy in terms of ICT includes, for instance, specific goals in increasing the number of cell phones or internet connections is excellent news for Internet Service Providers and telecom companies (which in Latin America are mostly multinational corporations) but says nothing about the improved living conditions of our citizens and assumes that an increase in ICT adoption means an increase in socio-economic conditions (which ALAI claims is simply not true by just looking at the economic and ethical meltdown surrounding the "dot-com bubble" a decade ago).
The debate had no clear winner and solid arguments can be seen in both versions of the "information society". As a way to move beyond this dichotomy, Spangenberg's paper "Will the information society be sustainable?" (2005) offers a "third way". The problem, he says, is with the conceptual foundations of the "information society": by definition, information is meaningless unless it is placed in a social and cultural context where it can become knowledge (and ideally understanding). Thus, he claims that the information society is not sustainable and we need to move towards a "knowledge society". This model should be based on normative (imperative) premises, rather than on positive (empirical) data, because we are taking about how society "ought to be". He agrees with ALAI that such imperatives should not come from a neoliberal ethics, according to which, for example, knowledge is framed as the key production factor, rendering labor and capital less important and implying that those with appropriate knowledge are believed to find work anytime and not doing so is their own fault. Instead, he suggest that sustainability offers a better normative framework for the knowledge society. The main imperative of sustainability is striking a balance between the present (or the short term) and the future (or the long term). This signals a shift from the "technology push" embedded in other technocratic "information society" models towards a social "demand pull". In terms of policy, this means changing the emphasis from ICT-based or purely economic indicators (such as, number of cell phones or GDP growth) towards a more complex and interrelated set of indicators aimed at sustainability. Grounded in complexity science, Spangenberg proposes a draft set of indicators classified according to economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions, coupled with a set of inter-linkage indicators: socio-economic, economic-institutional and socio-institutional. Each indicator, in addition, has a knowledge and an ICT component; for example, an institutional knowledge indicator (e.g. education expenditure) needs to be considered together with an institutional ICT indicator (e.g. capability to use ICT infrastructure and content). Such indicators, he argues, need to be coupled with clearly defined policy targets in order to guide the transition towards a "sustainable knowledge society".
In terms of the course project, each group is asked to use Spangenberg's draft indicators as a source for identifying the current state of the case and for identifying gaps, problems or opportunities where such indicators are missing or poorly achieved.
CEPAL's view of the information society may be seen as the "official" version aimed at policy makers, where ICT is understood as a source of economic and social development. In order for Latin America to become integrated into the information society, they recommend considering three kinds of prerequisites. First of all, there is the ICT infrastructure itself (TV, telephone, fiber optics, and wireless networks) together with the generic service applications that run on top of it (software, browsers, remote storage, etc.). Second, there are vertical sectors which use the infrastructure and services to become digital: e-commerce, e-government, e-health, e-learning, ... Third, there are diagonal areas which establish the rules and resources: regulation, finance and human capital. The starting point is a recognition of the digital divide (understood as the dividing line between those who benefit and those who do not benefit from ICT) as it is especially pronounced in Latin America. Thus, they recommend generating public policy which can reduce this gap by placing the emphasis on the individual and the community in order to reap benefits in terms of: economic development (productivity and competitiveness), social development (learning, health, culture), poverty reduction (sanitary assistance, early warning systems) and political participation (human rights, freedom of speech). The key, they argue is striking a balance between areas that may be in conflict (for example, using ICT for economic development may not be aligned with using it for democratic participation). What's not to like?
Well, the ALAI holds a more pessimistic (dare I say, paranoid?) view of the information society. They start by retracing the origins of the Internet as tied to the hegemonic, imperialistic aims of the United States of America. The military provenance of the original Arpanet during the Cold War was motivated by the need to have a resilient network in case of a nuclear attack. But they go beyond the technology itself making a well-known connection between ICT and globalization (where it is not clear which is the the enabler of the other). This means that the "information society" in ALAI's view is based on an instrumental notion of information which goes hand in hand with similar models of society, such as the "post-industrial society" or the "service economy". These views are connected to the ideas of the "end of ideology" (from the recently deceased Daniel Bell) and the "end of history" (Francis Fukuyama), according to which the end of the Cold War signals a significant step in the linear progression towards a new global information society where humanity converges into a unique, neutral, apolitical and technological project. ALAI, of course, holds that this covers up for the real strategic, geopolitical, unipolar aims of the information society, where all countries and peoples are to be absorbed under the values of the market democracy and specifically the neoliberal ideas contained in the Washington Consensus (liberalized trade, privatization, deregulation, reduction of the size of the state, labor market flexibility and the protection of private property, among others). As such, the digital divide is used to cover up what is in fact a social divide and ICT is seen as a solution to this problem, when in actuality it perpetuates these inequalities by embodying an unfair development model. Moreover, ICT can actually be used for exploitation, surveillance and social control. For example, the fact that we aim for increasing access to ICT needs to be coupled to the quick obsolescence of such ICT, making Latin American countries dependent upon every new technological configuration which is sold and controlled by foreign companies. The fact that public policy in terms of ICT includes, for instance, specific goals in increasing the number of cell phones or internet connections is excellent news for Internet Service Providers and telecom companies (which in Latin America are mostly multinational corporations) but says nothing about the improved living conditions of our citizens and assumes that an increase in ICT adoption means an increase in socio-economic conditions (which ALAI claims is simply not true by just looking at the economic and ethical meltdown surrounding the "dot-com bubble" a decade ago).
The debate had no clear winner and solid arguments can be seen in both versions of the "information society". As a way to move beyond this dichotomy, Spangenberg's paper "Will the information society be sustainable?" (2005) offers a "third way". The problem, he says, is with the conceptual foundations of the "information society": by definition, information is meaningless unless it is placed in a social and cultural context where it can become knowledge (and ideally understanding). Thus, he claims that the information society is not sustainable and we need to move towards a "knowledge society". This model should be based on normative (imperative) premises, rather than on positive (empirical) data, because we are taking about how society "ought to be". He agrees with ALAI that such imperatives should not come from a neoliberal ethics, according to which, for example, knowledge is framed as the key production factor, rendering labor and capital less important and implying that those with appropriate knowledge are believed to find work anytime and not doing so is their own fault. Instead, he suggest that sustainability offers a better normative framework for the knowledge society. The main imperative of sustainability is striking a balance between the present (or the short term) and the future (or the long term). This signals a shift from the "technology push" embedded in other technocratic "information society" models towards a social "demand pull". In terms of policy, this means changing the emphasis from ICT-based or purely economic indicators (such as, number of cell phones or GDP growth) towards a more complex and interrelated set of indicators aimed at sustainability. Grounded in complexity science, Spangenberg proposes a draft set of indicators classified according to economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions, coupled with a set of inter-linkage indicators: socio-economic, economic-institutional and socio-institutional. Each indicator, in addition, has a knowledge and an ICT component; for example, an institutional knowledge indicator (e.g. education expenditure) needs to be considered together with an institutional ICT indicator (e.g. capability to use ICT infrastructure and content). Such indicators, he argues, need to be coupled with clearly defined policy targets in order to guide the transition towards a "sustainable knowledge society".
In terms of the course project, each group is asked to use Spangenberg's draft indicators as a source for identifying the current state of the case and for identifying gaps, problems or opportunities where such indicators are missing or poorly achieved.
miércoles, 9 de febrero de 2011
Human and social aspects of ICT (Feb. 8)
This Tuesday, we talked about two different (but related) aspects of ICT development and use. Firstly, by focusing on Armour's "The Spiritual Life of Projects" we consider the human dimension that should be part of ICT (specifically software) development. Armour calls for a critical revision of the way in which we carry out software projects, in order to consider a more complete understanding of the people that make the software. This stems from how the Jesuits understand the dimensions of a human being. According to Armour, these are the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual dimensions, but a more complete account would also include the ethical, communicative, aesthetic and socio-political dimensions as well. Regardless of the number of dimensions or their terminology, the point is obvious: humans are not just their body, nor their thoughts. What separates us from machines, according to Armour, is the spirit (expressed, for example, as courage, tolerance, compassion, honesty).
This brought us to a discussion of identity, which was defined by some on Tuesday as what makes us unique or separates us from the rest - sadly, in Colombia we also tend to think about our national identity number as our identity and we are asked for this number even when we are buying toothpaste or a t-shirt, supposedly for taxation reasons, but obviously as a result of what still is mostly a society of distrust and, to a lesser extent, bureaucracy. Identity, however, need not imply difference or uniqueness, it can also mean relationship and belonging. Am I my name, my body, my job, my age, my religion, my gender, my nationality, my sport, my hobby, my family role? I am all those things and all those things link me to a group, actually to many different groups. It is precisely a limited understanding of identity (focusing on race or religion, for instance) which has created monstrous ideologies throughout history, including the still buoyant idea of the Clash of Civilizations or the so-called failure of multicultural societies (as if a mono-cultural society were possible / desirable). It is not about us vs. them, because there is no them once you consider a multidimensional identity as Amartya Sen (Identity and Violence, 2006) or Herbert Marcuse (One-Dimensional Man, 1964) have argued. Schizofrenia, for example is not really about having multiple personalities, it is about not being able to integrate those multifaceted features of personality into a coherent whole. This coherence is what creates a logical unity which becomes our identity, but it is merely a mental image of ourselves made up of our multiple dimensions and associations to groups. What does this have to do with developing software or ICT? It means that in order for a project to be succesful, it needs to ask more than just how to cut costs or increase efficiency or productivity; it also requires clarity in terms of norms of conduct, higher purpose, morale, mutual support, leadership, solidarity, etc.
Moving on from the human to the social dimension, Walsham's paper on development and global futures asks not how to consider the human-aspect of an ICT project but the social impact of ICT once implemented. As with identity, Walsham claims that a simplistic notion of development guided by ignorance and self-interest can also lead to a one-dimensional view in which "development" is a feature possessed by a group or country. Actually, he argues, development (again, as identity) is a complex and mutli-level concept. Thus, the recognition that there are multiple possibilities in terms of "global futures" enables us to rethink the role of ICT as a source of development, focusing on its impact against the digital divide, against ethnocentrism and against gender bias (meaning, male dominance). Let's join Walsham (and Armour, and Sen, and Marcuse) in celebrating diversity, not a source of conflict, but as a source of richness conducing to an increase in the likelihood of success of ICT development projects and to an increased likelihood of the positive effects of ICT. In other words, let's embrace this diversity so that ICT (technology in general) can be put to use for what it is meant, improving the lives of people and the future of the world.
Now, in order to join this program, we will focus on one specific case in which to apply these notions, together with the rest of the concepts, models and methods offered in the course. This will constitute the course project in two phases: (1) identifying problems or opportunities (for example to reduce the digital divide or gender bias) in the specific context of the case; and (2) designing a specific artifact or set of artifacts that can contribute to solving the problem. The cases are: WikiLeaks, the Colombian national ICT policy, our faculty's own social program, ICT offshoring and call centers, free software, and the role of ICT-enabled social networks in the ongoing socio-political crisis in Egypt. A full description of the cases and the project can be found on BlackBoard (UVirtual). It is expected that each group comment on this entry indicating which case they will use and why they consider it as a potentially rich setting for studying the human and social dimensions of ICT development and use.
This brought us to a discussion of identity, which was defined by some on Tuesday as what makes us unique or separates us from the rest - sadly, in Colombia we also tend to think about our national identity number as our identity and we are asked for this number even when we are buying toothpaste or a t-shirt, supposedly for taxation reasons, but obviously as a result of what still is mostly a society of distrust and, to a lesser extent, bureaucracy. Identity, however, need not imply difference or uniqueness, it can also mean relationship and belonging. Am I my name, my body, my job, my age, my religion, my gender, my nationality, my sport, my hobby, my family role? I am all those things and all those things link me to a group, actually to many different groups. It is precisely a limited understanding of identity (focusing on race or religion, for instance) which has created monstrous ideologies throughout history, including the still buoyant idea of the Clash of Civilizations or the so-called failure of multicultural societies (as if a mono-cultural society were possible / desirable). It is not about us vs. them, because there is no them once you consider a multidimensional identity as Amartya Sen (Identity and Violence, 2006) or Herbert Marcuse (One-Dimensional Man, 1964) have argued. Schizofrenia, for example is not really about having multiple personalities, it is about not being able to integrate those multifaceted features of personality into a coherent whole. This coherence is what creates a logical unity which becomes our identity, but it is merely a mental image of ourselves made up of our multiple dimensions and associations to groups. What does this have to do with developing software or ICT? It means that in order for a project to be succesful, it needs to ask more than just how to cut costs or increase efficiency or productivity; it also requires clarity in terms of norms of conduct, higher purpose, morale, mutual support, leadership, solidarity, etc.
Moving on from the human to the social dimension, Walsham's paper on development and global futures asks not how to consider the human-aspect of an ICT project but the social impact of ICT once implemented. As with identity, Walsham claims that a simplistic notion of development guided by ignorance and self-interest can also lead to a one-dimensional view in which "development" is a feature possessed by a group or country. Actually, he argues, development (again, as identity) is a complex and mutli-level concept. Thus, the recognition that there are multiple possibilities in terms of "global futures" enables us to rethink the role of ICT as a source of development, focusing on its impact against the digital divide, against ethnocentrism and against gender bias (meaning, male dominance). Let's join Walsham (and Armour, and Sen, and Marcuse) in celebrating diversity, not a source of conflict, but as a source of richness conducing to an increase in the likelihood of success of ICT development projects and to an increased likelihood of the positive effects of ICT. In other words, let's embrace this diversity so that ICT (technology in general) can be put to use for what it is meant, improving the lives of people and the future of the world.
Now, in order to join this program, we will focus on one specific case in which to apply these notions, together with the rest of the concepts, models and methods offered in the course. This will constitute the course project in two phases: (1) identifying problems or opportunities (for example to reduce the digital divide or gender bias) in the specific context of the case; and (2) designing a specific artifact or set of artifacts that can contribute to solving the problem. The cases are: WikiLeaks, the Colombian national ICT policy, our faculty's own social program, ICT offshoring and call centers, free software, and the role of ICT-enabled social networks in the ongoing socio-political crisis in Egypt. A full description of the cases and the project can be found on BlackBoard (UVirtual). It is expected that each group comment on this entry indicating which case they will use and why they consider it as a potentially rich setting for studying the human and social dimensions of ICT development and use.
miércoles, 2 de febrero de 2011
Technology-in-practice (feb. 1)
In today's lecture we discussed the primary understanding of ICT that will guide the rest of the course. On the one hand, we have Wanda Orlikowski's concept of "technology-in-practice". Stemming from structuration theory (Giddens), this notion argues that technology (ICT in particular) cannot be understood in isolation; it has to be placed into a context of situated action. As with structuration, it claims both a bottom-up, as well as a top-down effect of the use of technology. Through "agency", users shape the meaning and utility of technological artifacts as well as modifying the set of installations, norms and interpretation schemes that guide its understanding and usage; as a result "structure" (rules and resources) emerges from the bottom-up. But it works the other way around as well, this emergent structure also influences further enactment of the technology by imposing limits to this (re)shaping of technology through use. As a consequence, ICT cannot be understood as embodying a particular structure, since such structure is continually changing and alternative structures emerge out of different uses of the artifacts. Furthermore, ICT cannot be said to stabilize after adoption, since it is continually being modified as well as modifying the user itself though changing his or her way of doing things. The example of the cell-phone was an obvious choice to illustrate this: a cell-phone is not the same today as it was ten years ago (or will be next year); it is also not the same for a teenager than for his grandparents; even though it may be the same exact model, they have different intent, frequency of use, satisfaction, emotional attachment levels, etc.
On the other hand and in parallel, we discussed the work of Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores from their seminal 1986 book on Computers and Cognition. Few authors have been able to capture the role of ICTs within organizations so lucidly and with such lasting impact. In fact, it could be said that little progress has been achieved in such broad understanding of ICT since its publication over twenty years ago. By rooting their work in cybernetics, systems theory (autopiesis in particular), hermeneutics (Heidegger, Gadamer) and philosophy of language (Searle), they proposed an understanding of organizations as networks of conversations. Nothing gets done without orders, promises, commitments or requests being made through speech acts. In fact, all conversations are action-oriented. ICT, of course, comes in as a way to support, shape or reconfigure these interactions. As with Orlikowski, ICT is not given a meaning in isolation but rather through use. The importance of ICT is thus not centered on its inherent (physical) properties but in the way in which it can alter the way people communicate. Moreover, as with any other technology, it remains hidden (transparent) when users are absorbed in (semi) automatic tasks (like driving or typing). It is only through breakdown that technology becomes visible and forces the users to be aware of it. Thus, Winograd and Flores suggest an emphasis on identifying contexts of breakdown as a way to both anticipate failures and provide mechanisms for preventing or dealing with them, as well as using such context as a basis for constructing a domain or context of application. Such context is best understood as an ontology which represents recurring patterns of interaction and failure and can be the basis for the design of the technological means through which such ontology can be employed in (re)shaping conversations.
In sum, we start from an understanding of technology which is dynamic and in continuous interaction with the user. ICT is not a device in isolation whose effects can be designed and measured directly. This should re-frame the design activity and the role of the designer and the user towards participatory, iterative (open ended) means. It should also provide the philosophical underpinnings for understanding ICT and society together.
On the other hand and in parallel, we discussed the work of Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores from their seminal 1986 book on Computers and Cognition. Few authors have been able to capture the role of ICTs within organizations so lucidly and with such lasting impact. In fact, it could be said that little progress has been achieved in such broad understanding of ICT since its publication over twenty years ago. By rooting their work in cybernetics, systems theory (autopiesis in particular), hermeneutics (Heidegger, Gadamer) and philosophy of language (Searle), they proposed an understanding of organizations as networks of conversations. Nothing gets done without orders, promises, commitments or requests being made through speech acts. In fact, all conversations are action-oriented. ICT, of course, comes in as a way to support, shape or reconfigure these interactions. As with Orlikowski, ICT is not given a meaning in isolation but rather through use. The importance of ICT is thus not centered on its inherent (physical) properties but in the way in which it can alter the way people communicate. Moreover, as with any other technology, it remains hidden (transparent) when users are absorbed in (semi) automatic tasks (like driving or typing). It is only through breakdown that technology becomes visible and forces the users to be aware of it. Thus, Winograd and Flores suggest an emphasis on identifying contexts of breakdown as a way to both anticipate failures and provide mechanisms for preventing or dealing with them, as well as using such context as a basis for constructing a domain or context of application. Such context is best understood as an ontology which represents recurring patterns of interaction and failure and can be the basis for the design of the technological means through which such ontology can be employed in (re)shaping conversations.
In sum, we start from an understanding of technology which is dynamic and in continuous interaction with the user. ICT is not a device in isolation whose effects can be designed and measured directly. This should re-frame the design activity and the role of the designer and the user towards participatory, iterative (open ended) means. It should also provide the philosophical underpinnings for understanding ICT and society together.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)