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.