Theories of Sociotechnical Innovations

8/3/2019 Theories of Sociotechnical Innovations

1/26

The Sociotechnical Context of Digital Libraries: Three Theories

Seminar in Theory: LIS 6278

Dr. Michelle Kazmer

Florence Paisey: Paper One

[email protected]

April 2011

The first and most basic rule is to consider social facts as things.

Emile Durkheim


2/26

2

Introduction

Like so many words that are bandied about, the word theory threatens to become

meaningless (Merton, 1967 p. 39). Such is Mertons comment on sociological theory.

Indeed, Merton continues and states, the use of the word [theory] often obscures rather

than creates understanding (p. 39). In view of the profuse and bewildering array of

sociological theories in play, Mertons statement resonates. One sociological handbook

(Ritzer & Smart, 2006) presents thirty-six synopses of classic social theories. With such

theoretical range and variation, it is no wonder Merton points to the confusion and

ambiguity in sociological theory. Given this, it is challenging to sort out the theories and

taxing to buy into one.

McKechnie & Pettigrew (1996) have asserted that most information science scholars

do not share a single perspective about what a theory comprises or how one should be

used within research. However, regardless of whether there is consensus on the

definition and use of theory in information science, the dominant view maintains that

theoretical foundations and data frame, extend, and deepen ones vision. They are

generally applied as principles to guide a study, develop research questions, and

formulate methods of data collection, that, when analyzed, will either substantiate a

theory or call it into question.

Deciding on a theoretical perspective involves recognizing the subject of ones

research and discerning the scope of ones research problem. If ones objective involves

explaining a fundamental issue that drives humans to organize themselves in an

environment a law of nature, if you will one would be looking at a grand theory

(Turner & Boyns, p. 353). Such theories furnish an interconnected, overarching, and all-


3/26

3

encompassing rationale. With a grand theory, every aspect of social behavior,

organization, and change promptly find their preordained place (Merton, p. 45). These

theories are based on abstract premises and are argued deductively. The more reality that

is explained, the grander the theory becomes.

Following the practice of early philosophy in which philosophers introduced

comprehensive philosophical systems, early social scientists aimed to develop grand

theories. Emile Durkheim established modern sociology and founded the school of

structural functionalism. This grand theory viewed society holistically as a stable system

of interrelated entities. Other grand theorists include Max Weber, Karl Marx, Sigmund

Freud, Margaret Mead, Talcott Parsons, Jurgen Habermas, and Michel Foucault. If the

scope of ones research problem involves furnishing an all-encompassing rationale for a

full range of social forces operating at all levels of reality, a grand theory is the ticket

(Turner & Boyns, 2006 p. 353.)

Each pioneering social scientist and grand theory contributed significantly to

understanding and articulating social issues and fundamental concepts in the social order.

In fact, so many systems of social thought came about that sociology splintered into

fractious schools each school claiming its singular and veritable exactitude. Several

prominent schools whose proponents espoused grand theory in sociology included the

Frankfurt School, the Vienna Circle, the Chicago School, the Positivist School, and the

Neoclassicist School. A rudimentary distinction among these schools hinges on whether

they view the nature of social reality as positivist or socially constructed relativist.

Each of these schools of thought or orientations has precipitated variant, specialized

perspectives. The Chicago School, known for its pioneering studies in urban sociology


4/26

4

and criminology, spawned conflict theory, social disorganization theory, and strain theory

all related to explaining the social conditions that could provoke crime. Despite the

contentious intellectual conditions among the grand theories, many have endured,

refining their tenets and addressing significant social issues.

However, grand theory aimed to furnish all-embracing explanations of social order

they did not aim to address specific social ills. So, as Merton (1967) points out, despite

grand and significant social theories, critical social problems were not investigated.

Grand theory in sociological thought examined social order; the focus was on

demographic composition, social institutions, and class strata; social ills were not studied

as problematic conditions in search of relief.

Solutions to immediate social problems required a microscopic view of society such

problems needed identification, clarification, investigation, and interpretation. This sort

of inquiry necessitated another sort of theory and investigative approach. This approach

required social science to shift its focus and study small processes of social order,

particularly social interaction. Microsociology arose to examine these processes. Micro

sociological theory focuses on how individuals interpret and ascribe meaning to their

experiences. It seeks to answer questions of how people create their own social realities

from experience and organize their lives in a meaningful way. Microsociology is related

to phenomenology, emphasizing the study of concrete practices and processes of

participants in social situations. Methods of microsociological inquiry are frequently

naturalistic and require the researcher to conduct fieldwork as a participant observer or

with techniques of ethnomethodology.


5/26

5

Ethnographers study participants worlds with the objective of achieving an

insiders account. Grounded theory ethnographers emphasize comparing data on the

participants experiential processing throughout a study, forming connections, and

comparing data with emerging categories (Charmaz, 2010). Such data would provide an

explanation for the nature and occurrence of the problem. By discerning regularities and

ordering entities into groups or classes on the basis of their similarity then relating

these regularities or similarities to a concept, an insightful explanation for a social event

may surface (Bailey, 1994 p. 1). This would be a grounded, empirical, and inductive

approach in explicating a social event. The explanation could fall within the parameters

of an established microtheory or it may lead to the development of a theory.

Microtheories do not drive the interpretation of data; ones observation and empirical

data drives the development or support of a theory.

Conversely, macrotheory views social structure persistent patterns of social

interactions among individuals and corporate units as the primary unit of inquiry

(Turner & Boyns, 2006 p. 355). Concepts and variables that involve individual

subjectivity, experiential implications, and resulting interactions are not deemed

appropriate subjects for investigation. Macro aspects of social reality are emphasized.

Such macro aspects relate to the systemic, aggregate aspects of social structures. Such

systemic aspects include social class, varieties of social institutions, social roles, social

mobility, resource mobilization, demographics, and other macro aspects of social

realities. Theories of this nature are usually positivist or objectivist in nature. They are

based on abstract hypothetical premises and are argued deductively.


6/26

6

Middle-range theory deals with delineated units of social experience from which

hypotheses are, inductively, formed and substantiated through empirical investigation.

Merton (1967) viewed theories of the middle range as a means of circumventing

ambitious grand theories that had little relevance to observable social experience. He

also aimed to avoid the pitfalls of microtheorys proclivity in producing descriptive data

without teeth in other words, data lacking sufficient linkage necessary to generate

concepts applicable to previous or further study (Hine, 2007). Theories identified as

middle-range come about through qualitative methodologies; they are grounded in

specific, delimited situations where data fosters an awareness of the subjective lives of

participants (Charmaz, 2010).

Merton viewed middle range theory and methodology as a means of furnishing rich

descriptions of real-life experience that could be analyzed for regularities in experiences

and then used to generate emergent concepts suitable for further study and, potentially,

integration. Middle range theories could be nested, one into another, thereby offering an

integrated explanation for social processes. A simple, seminal idea or self-evident

assumption often makes use of middle-range theory. For example, digital libraries mean

different things to different people (Witten, Bainbridge, & Nichols, 2008 p. 7). Owing

to the proliferation of digital libraries, this notion has become a logical, self-evident

assumption. If the idea has substance or verity, it leads to systematic inquiry and raises

questions that can be followed up with substantive sociological inquiry. Such a view of

digital libraries, does, in fact, lend itself to substantive sociological inquiry.

Digital libraries are but one effect or social phenomenon of the current technological

explosion and acceleration. How they came about, what directions they have taken, and


7/26

7

why they advanced so rapidly are questions that can be analyzed within several

sociological theories. In this paper, the process underneath their rapid growth will be

explored within the framework or precepts of three middle range theories: social

construction of technology (SCOT) actor-network theory (ANT), and social

constructivism.

Three Theories and Digital Libraries

In determining the activities that have affected the growth of digital libraries, it is

essential to have a working definition and model in place (Saracevic & Covi, 2000).

Borgman (1999) has provided a broad definition that connects the information needs of a

research community and the more socially oriented, practical library community. She

described digital libraries as a set of electronic resources with associated technical

capabilities for creating, searching, and using information that are constructed,

collected, and organized by (and for) a community of users (p. 227). While Borgman

asserted this concept a decade ago, it continues to encapsulate the sociotechnical nature

of a digital library.

A similar but variant definition is offered by Witten, Bainbridge, & Nichols (2008).

They define a digital library as a focused collection of digital objects, including text,

video, and audio, along with methods for access and retrieval, and for selection,

organization, and maintenance of the collection (p. 7). At the core, these two definitions

are similar, however it is quite significant that Borgman includes the value of the user

community. In recognizing the user dimension of a digital library, Borgman recognizes

its social nature as well as acknowledging the technical aspect.


8/26

8

In recognizing the social dimension of a digital library, one is also recognizing the

social dimension of all technologies. As a result, the social and the technical become

collaborators in shaping what technologies develop and how they are purposed. As

Bijker & Law (1992) state, If [technologies] evolve or change, it is because they have

been pressed into that shape. In this sense, the social can be viewed as a path of

associations between unstable heterogeneous elements. What processes and

associations influence the shape and direction of technologies? Why do technologies

develop in one direction, rather than another? If digital libraries mean different things to

different people, how have digital libraries been shaped or constructed by social

dimensions? What social, historical, and technical negotiations have directed their

development and their diversity? What motivates an individual to appropriate a

technology or artifact? These issues are at the heart of a sociotechnical perspective.

The sociotechnical point of view maintains that the social and the technical do not

develop as mutually exclusive entities, propelled by separate systems of internal logic or

determinism. They develop in counterpoint, seamlessly, within heterogeneous

contingencies that societal, economic, political, scientific, professional, and

psychological dimensions impose. This sociotechnical perspective maintains the

perspective (and assumption) that technology, the social world, and the course of history

should all be treated as messy contingencies (Bijker & Law, 1992 p. 8).

The theoretical approaches that form a framework in conceptualizing some of the

contingencies that shape digital libraries include the social construction of technology

(SCOT), actor network theory (ANT), and social constructivism. These theories focus on

the interaction among heterogeneous contingencies in shaping technologies, society,


9/26

9

users, and the cultures with which they identify. In particular, what dynamics account for

the growth and diversity of digital libraries? Each conceptual framework or theory

emphasizes a different aspect of the sociotechnical dynamic. Yet, each theoretical

approach views social organization, cultural norms, innovations, and individual

development as effects of ordered networks of heterogeneous materials (Law, 1992 p.

2). This view contrasts a macrotheory that views systemic aggregates such as social

institutions, social class, or social mobility as stable, primary units of investigation in

sociology.

The social construction of technology (SCOT) has grown out of the tenets of social

constructionism and the sociology of scientific knowledge. Social construction holds that

knowledge and reality are social constructions rather than mirrors, reflecting nature or an

objective reality. As a result, SCOT argues that technologies and technological practices

(such as digital libraries) are assembled through a process of social construction. Such a

view holds that participants interests and technical possibilities drive technological

outcomes (Bijker & Law, 1992).

Actor network theory (ANT) associates the social and the technical as equal actors

(the human and nonhuman or human and technical) that interact on the basis of properties

of an actant that are inscribed by expected and prescribed behaviors within a particular

setting. Law (1992) views power as a central instrument in actor network theory.

Consequently, Law rejects any assumption that social assemblage involves either a

macrosystem or a microsystem. He proposes that society is a blank slate comprised of

interactions. These various interactions may or may not succeed in becoming stable and

forming aggregates. As such, ANT holds that nothing is inevitable about social order.


10/26

10

Latour (1992) maintains that social order refers to stable connected entities (social

institutions, roles, class distinctions) or assemblages that offer no intrinsic explanation

about the interactive process of their assemblage or stabilizing. He challenges the status

quo of sociological inquiry by asking sociologists to explain how social order comes

about and what processes are involved in effecting the organization and reorganization of

society.

Social constructivism, a moderate view of social constructionism, holds that

knowledge is a construct of culture, language, and social roles. Within the discipline of

information science, its ideas are associated with the cognitive paradigm (Talia,

Tuomenin, & Savolainen, 2004). Social constructivism emanates from the classic

ideational philosophy of Kant. Kant believed that knowledge of the world is possible by

imposing preordained categories or structures of thought on indeterminate experience.

These categories existed a priori. Although constructivists believe that individuals and

groups interpret and construct social realities, they dispute Kants notion of a priori

categories and hold that there are no autonomous interpretive principles.

On the contrary, concepts and meanings associated with experience vary from group

to group or individual to individual. Although the mind constructs reality as one

experiences the world, ones cognitive processing is informed by social conventions,

history, and interaction with significant others (Talia, Tuomenin, & Savolainen, 2004 p.

81). A central tenet is that social realities are consciously constructed of thoughts,

beliefs, languages, signs, and significations among people and things. Ideas and

mediations infuse objects with meanings. Thus, meaning ultimately organizes and guides

the construction of multiple social realities. The philosopher of science, Kuhn,


11/26

11

essentially held constructivist views by recognizing that scientists practice in different

paradigms or with different assumptions, Kuhn accepted that they are ascribing different

meanings to their experiences and constructing different meanings and perspectives as

scientists.

The theory of social constructivism and the social construction of technology (SCOT)

both share the notion that the interpretation of ones experience and its meaning shape the

path of development for both the human actor and the nonhuman actor. The two schools

of thought are distinct, yet complementary. Social constructivism emphasizes the process

by which an individual will appropriate an artifact, use it, and value it. The questions that

social constructivism addresses include the meanings the user ascribes to the artifact and

the artifacts effect on the users self-concept and values.

Digital Libraries and SCOT

The technical and social needs of user communities shape and propel the movement of

digital libraries. SCOT proceeds from the assumption that technological change even

at the level of engineering solutions and design is driven by social processes rather than

any internal technological logic (Bruun & Hukkinen, 2003 p. 101). As an example of

such a process, Bijker (1992) describes the technological framework in which the high

intensity daylight fluorescent lamp was continually shaped and redesigned by various

social groups involved (p. 75). Bijker states at the outset of his paper that his intention

in describing the process is to illustrate how damaging a rigid, linear model of technical

development could be.


12/26

12

The high intensity fluorescent daylight lamp was developed in the late 1930s. Bijker

states, the starting point in bringing an innovation to purposeful, widespread use, lies in

the key social groups involved in its diffusion. Each of these key social groups has

problems and solutions related to the artifact. The problems and solutions that these

social groups assert trace the path of interpretive flexibility and ultimate stabilization for

the artifact. The interpretive flexibility of the artifact denotes how differently various

stakeholders perceive its potential use and efficacy. Discerning what each of the relevant

social groups means, may involve the use of ethnographic methodologies.

With regard to the fluorescent lamp, it was first necessary to identify key relevant

social groups. Then, it was essential to listen to the actors of each group and be assured

that each actors voice is heard and the weight each actor carries within the group

attributed accordingly. Bijker states that determining relevant social groups and the

attribution of meaning resides with the intuition of the researcher. At no point in the

paper does Bijker express skepticism about following intuitive inclinations. In addition,

the relevant social group is termed as both a social group and an analyst concept. So,

one listens to the group and analyzes the constituency and content of what is said.

While listening to the social groups, questions one might pose might include why a

different artifact or material might be preferable, or what criteria the social groups use to

determine an artifacts efficacy. The answers to these questions are argued in

technological controversies. Linear or logical trajectories do not determine if an artifact

is accepted or how an artifact will be purposed. Often men view the efficacy of an

artifact in one way and women another or, one social group may value efficiency and

set criteria differently from another. Successful negotiation of these flexible


13/26

13

interpretations and controversies often requires compromise or the openness to integrate

features desired by involved social groups. Each technological artifact can be interpreted

in many ways. The perceived problem that the artifact is intended to solve is the core of

the matter. If innovators can address the problem accurately and provide a solution,

technical stability and closure will usually follow.

Digital libraries mean different things to different people here lies the interpretive

flexibility. How then, would one go about constructing a digital library (DL) that will

serve its various constituents who interpret the purpose of a digital library differently and

according to their own needs and purposes? Given a public digital library, access is

online and potentially universal. How does one identify the relevant social groups and

attribute leadership within the groups? Various means of researching these questions are

available. Quantitative methodologies and data collection such as surveys,

questionnaires, or web analytics might be deployed online. Other suitable qualitative

methods include focus groups, interviews, or user participation. An ethnographic use of

historical records might be considered. Such records would evidence how and what

materials have been previously used.

In addition to the content selected for a DL, enabling technologies, technical

infrastructure, and interface will have an impact on the stabilization of the artifact the

DL. In a sense, this aspect of a DL is analogous to architecture in a physical library; it is

technical, but no matter how dazzling the technologies and aesthetics may be, a physical

library is embedded within a social and cultural environment. As such, it needs to

correspond with users preferences, needs, and the sociocultural predilections.


14/26

14

In a physical library, design, layout, interior furnishings, the help and reference desk

are interpreted with expected controversy that savvy developers will resolve. The

magnitude of these aspects in a DL is not as obvious, nor have technologists, designers,

and sociologists been viewed as an obvious and integral team. Yet, structural elements of

a DL need to be addressed by key social groups (Kling, 1999). The importance and use

of SCOTs integrative flexibility and technological frame is vital to recognize in the

online environment.

The notion of a technological frame comprises all interactions (technical and social)

among relevant social groups and their attribution of meanings to the artifact (Bijker,

1999). Bijker cites some elements of the technological frame as goals, key problems,

problem-solving strategies, current theories, tacit knowledge, testing procedures, and

design methods. If the social and the technical meet seamlessly, the DL will achieve

stability or closure until innovation raises the bar once again and destabilizes the

artifact.

Digital Libraries and ANT

Actor-network theory (ANT) associates the social and the technical as equal actors or

actants (the human and nonhuman) that interact and form networks, symmetrically, on

the basis of qualities with which actors are inscribed. Latour, one of the advocates of

ANT, maintains that it is not possible to identify the components of social order in

other words, macro concepts such as social structure, demographics, status, roles, or

social groups do not describe the possesses inherent in their formation. Social order,

status, or roles in this sense, is meant to name what is already affiliated or joined without

any description of the process of affiliation or assemblage. Such components (social


15/26

15

order, class, roles, institutions, social structures) are the consequence, rather than the

cause, of negotiations, translations, and assemblages among actors/actants or agents.

Latour views the problem to be solved as the solutions of conventional sociology. In

fact, by designating an assemblage as a social structure, one imposes additional

information or meaning.

As an alternative, Latour asks what processes operate to establish social structures or

networks. He raises the question about what activities define the social dimension. What

are the processes that operate in forming social connections? How do an associations

form and what activities constitute them. Furthermore, how do negotiations, mediations,

and translations stabilize to form a social dimension? What processes alter and reorganize

the networks of the social dimension? Such questions address the topology or

interrelated parts that form the essence of what Latour examines as social.

Rather than conceiving of the social exclusively in terms of dimensions, Latour also

views the social as unstable, filament-like nodes that circulate within channels.

Mediations and controversies move associations that will, ultimately, form collectives.

When a group of individuals gather, they have moved through associations to form a

node or a collective. A node can also be viewed as a cluster, or in Latours terms,

archipelagos on a sea (Latour, 1997 p. 3). As such, Law (2007) states that the actor

network approach is not a theory in the sense of explaining causality. ANT is

descriptive; it tells stories about how relations assemble or dont (p. 2). If understood

as a narrative of relationships, ANT can clearly be viewed as the semiotics of social

construction.

Latour rejects the notion that there is a stable order or social context in which


16/26

16

collectives or clusters are embedded. He states, To be social is no longer a safe and

unproblematic property, it is a movement that may fail to trace any new connection and

may fail to redesign any well-formed assemblage (1992 p. 8). What is conventionally

called a social explanation (an imposition), such as social roles, social order, or

community confuses what should be explained with an explanation. By addressing the

topic of social order, one is beginning with a social construct. Rather than beginning

with a social construct, ANT ends with one. ANT looks at what lies beneath social

structures and explains the essence or how it comes to be its nature. Given this

perspective, the notion of socialization takes on new meaning.

ANT views the social as a composition of associations or social ties (connections).

The sociologists task involves traveling wherever new heterogeneous associations are

made and following the traces or path of ties (connections). The study of the social is a

study of the path or channel by which heterogeneous elements associate and aggregate.

In this way, social technical change occurs as an outcome of the strength of association

between actors (actants) human and nonhuman and agency. Latours sociology of

associations describes the movement and restructuring of social dimensions and channels

with actants forming connections and aggregations.

Actor network theory and the social construction of technology (SCOT) complement

each other where SCOT emphasizes the importance of relevant social groups in shaping

technical artifacts, ANT furnishes a roadmap to trace the processes by which social

groups are formed and an artifact is developed (Bruun & Hukkinen, 2003). From the

perspective of ANT, if technologists succeed in translating the relevant social groups


17/26

17

perception or interpretation of a technology, then the controversy attains closure and

stability is achieved.

SCOT and ANT differ significantly with regard to social context. SCOT accepts the

social constructions and concepts of social context, social fabric, institutions, social

order, and organizations. ANT does not. ANT views the construction of institutions and

organizations in the same way as technology; they are constructed in the process of

actants relations, associations, translations, and interpretations of interactions.

Digital libraries mean different things to different people. They are sociotechnical

systems that have integrated heterogeneous elements purposed for knowledge work.

These heterogeneous elements can present difficulties as each network of associations

and inscriptions prioritize purposes, including technologies and content. These

associations or ties also seek to enroll others (Van House, 2003).

As a system or network of heterogeneous elements with participants expecting their

interests to be met, conflict among participants can arise. This conflict is continuing and

reflects invariable pressures as well as the diverse interests of actants or participants.

Potentially, this conflict could threaten the stability of the network or DL. On the other

hand, one of the strengths of a DL is in its integration of heterogeneous elements or

inscriptions and the flexibility that such variety ensures. If there is conflict that

destabilizes the system, re-inscription can occur simply put, re-inscription is an

associative movement involving feedback to resolve complications and restore stability

(Akrich and Latour, 1992).

Moreover, DLs facilitate the mobility of inscriptions (competencies of actants or what

actors do to one another). Inscriptions can cross knowledge boundaries (Van House,


18/26

18

2003) and be used in ways that had not been envisioned. This is a double-edged sword

both an asset and a liability. If the credibility of an inscription is questioned, this can

destabilize the DL. Van House (2003) analyzes the associations and stability of a DL

from three vantage points: its situated nature, its distributed nature, and its social nature.

Each of these aspects carries implications for their construction, shaping, and

stabilization. As a situated sociotechnical system, the mission of a DL will relate to a

specific knowledge community. As a distributed system, a DL coordinates work

practices and communication across distances. Finally, as a social system, DLs are

embedded in the social processes by which communities determine credibility. Bruun &

Hukkinen (2003) cite four questions that frame a basic analysis of any technological

change, including DLs. First, what changes in technological change or what

technological changes have occurred. To answer this question, one examines the

technological system and identifies aspects that require change before controversies have

destabilized the network or system. This will involve effective translation of actors and

entities. Second, what drives the change? What actants and agency bring about the

change? The answer to this question includes the social, technological, and other

relevant factors. With a DL, credibility of the knowledge base is an essential feature of

stabilization. Third, what process moves the change? This aspect involves the

mechanisms and dynamics that take place when the technological system changes from

one state to another (Bruun & Hukkinen, p. 107). How do actors translate their

perceptions and interpret them? Finally, what are the parameters of change? This refers

to contextual stabilities or the contingencies in networks.

Digital Libraries and Social Constructivism


19/26

19

The two previous theories have concentrated on the interaction between the social and

the technical, each shaping one another in sociotechnical collaboration. However, what

happens to the individual person in the dynamics between technological developments

and societal influences? How many individuals feel lost in the shuffle? How many find

their way?

Several years ago, Laura Hillenbrands book, Seabiscuit was turned into a movie.

One of the early scenes presented an immediate conflict or complication. A man who

loved wide-open spaces and nature and horses was fingering barbed wire as he gazed

over the hilly countryside. His gaze was thoughtful. He knew the era of open spaces and

wild horse country was coming to a rapid close. A few scenes later, while riding, he

glanced over to a new roadway where automobile drivers were racing their shiny new

pieces of technology. This technology left him out. His character was one of inner

strength and direction not sentimentality he was not lost, but he realized the life he

valued was lost. Although he found his way, how many could not?

In this era of digital transformation, how many find their way; how many do not?

What affect does technology have on individuals and their self-concept, self-worth, self-

esteem, productivity? How does the individual construct their social reality in relation to

technology specifically digital libraries?

The essence of social constructivism is that social reality is not something that exists

independent of the thoughts, beliefs, and feelings of people. Social reality is not external;

it resides within ones consciousness, values, and beliefs. Ideas and beliefs about entities

convey meaning to individuals and individuals organize their lives accordingly. The

physical entities exist, but the affect it carries to people will determine how it is


20/26

20

perceived, translated, and interpreted within a life. This is social constructivism in a

nutshell.

Lock and Strong (2010) paraphrase Garfinkels notion of conjoining the social and the

individual life. They pose the question Where do social influences end and individual

capacities to transcend them begin? Their answer is what enables people to succeed are

their competencies in using social constructions (language and interpersonal norms), then

distinguishing between the social and the individual. Garfinkel believed that people

shape the social contexts they inhabit as much as social constructs shape who they

become. Garfinkel conducted most of his research using ethnomethodology. His

research demonstrated that people viewed social activity as the means by which they

understood each other and coordinated their interactions with each other. In this age of

the information explosion, digital transformation, and overload, do people have a choice

in constructing their social and individual realities?

Garfinkel would answer a resounding, yes! Unlike Garfinkels predecessor, Talcott

Parsons, Garfinkel views people as acting with intentionality and choice. One is

embedded in the social reality that one has constructed for oneself, rather than reacting to

a social reality that is rigidly internalized and that encodes a preordained or determined

reality and range of associated behaviors. Ideas and beliefs about entities and others

convey meaning to individuals and individuals organize their lives accordingly. When

the social construction of technology indicates that relevant social groups have a voice in

shaping technologies and digital libraries, this social construction also applies to the more

narrowly construed, social constructivism.


21/26

21

People can distinguish between the social and the individual. Communication

technologies and digital libraries are tools employed to meet objectives. It is necessary to

be aware of distinctions as well as ones power to construct social and personal realities

according to the values and meaning that one ascribes to them. Individuals and social

groups shape their construction, their content, and enabling technologies according to the

value and use they intend. Individuals knowledge of oneself and the world are

constructed through discourse this discourse may occur verbally through physical

interactions, but in the online world, social and individual realities may well be

constructed online.

In fact, while the traditional family nucleus is rapidly scattering, the online family

nucleus seems to be growing stronger daily. Not only are families and individuals

communicating and constructing social realities online, they are researching their

histories and becoming more aware of their roots. This practice is deepening and

enlarging many individuals social world and realities. One form of a digital library is an

online archive formal online archives have developed rapidly, particularly those where

the content relates to family records and genealogy. Knowledge of ones genealogical

heritage contributes to ones social awareness, history, and construction of social realities

laden with values and meaning that enrich and direct individual lives.

Conclusion

Three theories have been explored in relation to the topic of how innovations and, in

particular, digital libraries have been shaped through the interaction between key social

groups, their agents, controversies, mediations, and ultimate, stabilization, closure, or de-

stabilization for a while. Innovations are heterogeneous elements that function as


22/26

22

solutions for specific social groups and individuals who ascribe meaning and value to

them. The three theories explored have been the social construction of technology, the

actor network theory, and social constructionism. All three theories may be viewed as

sociotechnical perspectives that seek to explain the development of technologies, their

direction, and the functions they currently fulfill. It is clear that no technology exists or is

sustained in a vacuum. It is also clear that the way a technology is translated today may

certainly be interpreted differently tomorrow.


23/26

23

References

Akrich, M. & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the

semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Bikjer & Law (Eds.), Shaping

technology/ building society, 259-264. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification

techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bearman, D. (2008). Digital libraries. Annual Review of Information Science and

Technology (ARIST), 41, 223-272. DOI: 10.1002/aris.2007.1440410112

Bijker, W. E. (1992). The social construction of florescent lighting. In Bikjer & Law

(Eds.), Shaping technology/building society, 75-102. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bijker, W. E. (1999). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bijker, W. E. & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in

sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Borgman, C. (1999). What are digital libraries? Competing visions. Information

Processing and Management, 35, 227-243.

Bruner, J. (1990a). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1-21.

Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org

Bruun, H. & Hukkinen, J. (2003). Crossing boundaries: An integrative framework for

studying technological change. Social Studies of Science, 33, 95-116. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org

Charmaz, K. (2010). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through

qualitative analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.


24/26

24

Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method and selected texts on sociology

and its method. New York: The Free Press.

Engestrom, Y., Reijo, M., & Punamaki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory.

Cambridge: CUP.

Favreau, P. & Mills, K. (1996). From National Information Infrastructure to Global

Collaboration Infrastructure,"Proceedings KTIS'96.

Fleischmann, K. R. (2007). Digital libraries and human values: Human-computer

interaction meets social infomatics, Proceedings of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology (ASSIST), 44, 1550-1567. DOI:

10.1002/meet.1450440229

IFLA (2010). Bridging the digital divide: Making the worlds cultural and scientific

heritage accessible to all. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/publications/ifla-

manifesto-for-digital-libraries

Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and

interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Kling, R. & Hert, C. (1998). Social infomatics in information science: An introduction.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1047-1052.

Kling, R. (1999). What is social informatics and why does it matter? D-Lib Magazine,

5. Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html

Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane

artifacts. In Bijker & Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/ building society, 225-228.

Cambridge: MIT Press.


25/26

25

Latour, B. (1997). 'On actor network theory: A few clarifications. Retrieved from

http://www.nettime.org

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory.

Oxford: OUP.

Levy, D. M. (2000). Digital libraries and the problem of purpose. D-Lib Magazine, 6,

22-25.

Lesk, M. (2005). Understanding digital libraries. San Francisco: Elsevier.

Lock, A. & Strong, T. (2010). Social Constructionism: Sources and stirrings in theory

and practice. Cambridge: CUP.

McKechnie, L. & Pettigrew, K. (1996). Surveying the use of theory in library and

information science research: A disciplinary perspective. Library Trends, 50, 406-

417.

McLuhan, M. & Powers, B. (1992). The Global Village: Transformations in World Life

and Media in the 21st Century. Oxford: OUP.

Merton, R. K. (1967). On theoretical sociology: Five essays, old and new. NY:

Macmillan.

Ritzer, G. & Smart, B. (2007). Handbook of social theory. Los Angeles: Sage.

Saracevic, T. & Covi, L. (2000). Challenges for digital library evaluation. Annual

Meeting of the American Society for Information Science (ARIST).

Sawyer, S. (2005). Social infomatics: Overview, principles and opportunities. Bulletin

of the American Society for Information Science, Special Section, 9-12.


26/26

26

Talja, S. (2004). Isms in information science: Constructivism, collectivism and

constructionalism. Journal of Documentation, 61, 79-101. DOI

10.1108/00220410510578023

Tredinnick, L. (2006). Digital information contexts: Theoretical approaches to

understanding digital information. Oxford: Chandos.

Turner, J. H. (Ed.) (2006). Handbook of sociological theory. NY: Springer.

Wilson, T. D. (2004). Talking about the problem: A content analysis of pre-search

interviews. Information Research, 10. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-

1/paper/206.html

Wilson, T. D. (2006). A re-examination of information seeking behavior in the context

of activity theory. Information Research, 11. Retrieved from

http://InformationR.net/11-4/paper260.html

Witten, I., Bainbridge, D., & Nichols, D. (2008). How to build a digital library. Boston:

Elesiver.

Theories of Sociotechnical Innovations

Documents

Transcript of Theories of Sociotechnical Innovations