Part II:
Case Studies (continued); Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (pp. 105-216)
|
| • |
Chapter
8: "Wolf, Batgirl, and Starlight: Finding a Real Community in
a Virtual World" |
| |
This chapter
discusses Pueblo, a virtual space created by Phoenix, AZ, elementary
school students (K-6), many of whom are Latina/o and Native American.
It is telling that Nardi & O’Day named the chapter after virtual
identities adopted by some participants in Pueblo. Why did they do
so? You may want especially to consider the importance of identity
and interaction in this virtual space, including their discussion
of how both self-presentations and contributions constitute identity
(pp. 127f).
|
| |
What is your
reaction to N&O’s presentation of the interactions in Pueblo?
Specifically, what do you think of their presentation of unedited
contributions by the children? Why do you think that? What effects
do the sometimes extended quotations from the children have on you
as a reader?
|
| p. 111 |
they assert
that Pueblo is a good example of the mutually constitutive evolution
of technical features and social practices – do you agree? Why or
why not?
|
| 113 |
what implications
for Pueblo, if any, are there in the fact that many of the children
are "learning disabled," while, for others, English is a
second language?
|
| 115ff |
they make
much of how the social practices of the classroom characterize Pueblo
– is there argument convincing? Later in the chapter (p. 125), N&O
describe how the social values of the familiar setting develop new
interpretations "because the new technologies create new possibilities
for knowledge and doing." What is your reaction to this statement?
|
| 119 |
N&O assert
that "Participants are motivated to write well because of the
enjoyment they give to themselves and others – they can create experiences
for others who visit their creations."
|
| 120 |
they continue
this line of reasoning, saying that the act of creation for these
children is "intrinsically motivating." What precisely does
such a phrase mean? I regard this phrase as one of the most important
in the book – what is your reaction to it? Please also think about
the book as a whole and your own experiences with IT.
|
|
122
|
they remind
us of the concept of affordances – what is it? |
| 128-129 |
Nardi &
O’Day discuss how the ability to influence technology depends upon
participation – thus broad and extended participation leads to the
possibility for substantial influence on the characteristics of technology
in local ecologies
|
| 131 |
I find myself
still wrestling with their description of the difficult question of
how to deal with "offensive" speech in Pueblo, specifically
by inhibiting the gag command. What do you think of this decision?
How does this decision interact with our conceptions of children?
Of children in school? Of the commitment of LIS to particular political
values?
|
| 136 |
do you agree
with N&O’s assertions that (1) Pueblo is a success and (2) that
the teachers and administrators have engaged in a process of persistent
reflection and experimentation?
|
| • |
Chapter
9: "Cultivating Gardeners: The Importance of Homegrown Expertise"
|
| |
This chapter
focuses on two studies – one of computer-aided design (CAD, sometimes
called computer-assisted design) users and the other of spread sheet
users.
|
| 140 |
"This
gardener points to the need for people to play diverse roles around
technological tools – to cooperate to get the ‘full potential’ of
the tools." So, given this general context, who are gardeners,
and why do they matter, specifically?
|
| 141 |
N&O emphasize
the value of the customization of software and assistance of co-workers,
including the embedding of help in the "natural flow of work"
in groups (p. 143)
|
| 143 |
gardeners
help set standards for terminology, as well as standards for engagement
with the technology and commitment to the overall success of the organization
|
| 145 |
specific knowledge
of local technical practice is key to the success of gardeners
|
| 148 |
N&O say
that "We are not sure exactly why gardening became formalized
in organizations using CAD tools but not those using spreadsheets."
What do you think? What is your evaluation of their attempts at explaining
this difference?
|
| 150 |
reiterating
the theme of reward, Nardi & O’Day say that "Willing gardeners
are people who find the activity of helping others rewarding in itself."
Such a theme naturally recalls the ethos of LIS – how do you react?
|
| • |
Chapter
10: "Digital Photography at Lincoln High School"
|
| 154 |
N&O remark
that the teacher (Ms. Lynch) taught the students "to regard digital
alteration as an art form – the photographs were not intended to support
any kind of ‘realism.’ No one was aiming for accuracy or verisimilitude.
The original photograph was simply a raw material like paint or stone."
|
| |
What is your
reaction to this description? Of Ms. Lynch’s approach? What implications
does this attitude have for our largely unexamined assumption that
"the camera never lies"?
|
| |
How does this
chapter’s emphasis on the artistic elements in digital work make the
chapter like and unlike the other case studies in the book?
|
| 157 |
here and elsewhere
in the book (see the earlier study guides), Nardi & O’Day invoke
the image of technology as "tool." Also see p. 30 on tools’
handles and affordances and p. 167 on the computer "as just another
tool."
|
| 159 |
N&O, in
essence, make a pitch for "computers across the curriculum"
– what do you think of their assertion? Does it matter at all?
|
| 163 |
reiterating
a theme important in the previous chapter about gardeners, N&O
emphasize the importance of making the use of technology embedded
within activities that users find intrinsically interesting and meaningful
|
| |
|
| |
an important
point of the book as a whole is that "[i]t is especially apt
for students to learn the same tools [sic] professionals use,
not watered-down ‘educational’ versions." Recall that the students
at Lincoln are using professional-level Adobe Photoshop.
|
| 166 |
further, N&O
remind us that computer/keyboarding skills matter little without linking
the learning to larger goals that are "obvious, attainable, and
valued."
|
| 167 |
as may be
clear from the other notes on both textbooks, I do not, for a minute,
believe that the "computer is just another tool." The main
difficulty is that no tool is "just" a tool – as you have
all heard so often before, a tool limits possibility as well as opens
it, it creates some expectations and practices while eliminating others.
Even more importantly for computers, however, because computers are
essentially discursive tools, they can never claim pre-rhetorical
or pre-political status, i.e., they invariably shape the environments
in which they are used.
|
| 168 |
among Nardi
& O’Day’s chief conclusions is that it’s easier to find teachers
whose work can be technically enhanced than to find technical experts
who can be expected to become good teachers. What does this situation
imply for your professional practice? For LIS generally?
|
|
Notes
|
|
| 223 |
Note 4 – their
argument about virtual experience is highly contentious and worth
considering closely
|
| • |
Chapter
11: "A Dysfunctional Ecology: Privacy Issues at a Teaching Hospital"
|
| |
unlike the
other chapters, this one is essentially about failure, and, as Heidegger
and many others have made plain, failure is an opportunity to examine
the assumptions that we generally elide, naturalize, and regard as
transparent.
|
| 170 |
the focus
in this chapter is on how technology’s "uncritical, unreflective
installation stirred up problems by violating some of the values of
the local ecology."
|
| 173ff |
two major
themes emerge here – (1) the interpretation of the video feed depends
upon the responsibilities of the person doing the observation and
(2) the unanticipated effects of encouraging staff to participate
at a geographic distance
|
| 178 |
although the
concept of privacy is and was invoked to "explain" the ill
effects of the technology, it was, in fact, the closed and balanced
nature of the social practices of the surgical theatre that was ignored
and threatened. Among other things, this dysfunctional ecology reminds
us that "privacy" is far from a non-contentious and monolithic
concept.
|
| |
the two major
concerns with privacy involved inappropriate monitoring of performance
and compromise of patients’ "privacy"
|
| 180 |
the nurses
and anesthesiologists particularly felt that the technology (1) did
not benefit them directly, (2) was implemented without their permission,
and (3) was implemented at their expense
|
| 181 |
I found myself
wondering here and throughout the chapter if there was a meta-story
that made the Pueblo so successful and the hospital story so unsuccessful.
I’m still undecided . . .
|
| 183 |
N&O refer
the reader to the need for asking strategic questions (see pp. 70-74)
|
| 184 |
one of the
most important lessons from the hospital example was the clearly demonstrated
need for broader participation in design, implementation, and evaluation
of digital systems. Of course, our reaction is "duh," but
the chapter provides some nice examples of what went wrong, how it
went wrong, and how it might have gone right.
|
| • |
Chapter
12: "Diversity on the Internet"
|
| 185 |
Nardi &
O’Day state that the aim of this chapter is to "offer a reflection
on the Internet as a riveting global phenomenon with important implications
for local information ecologies."
|
| |
While they
are somewhat successful in achieving that goal, the "technical"
details and descriptions in the chapter are so elemental that they
are, ultimately, quite misleading and tend to undermine the credibility
of N&O’s argument. The novice-like "description" of
the Web is only the most simplistic of these details.
|
| 188 |
much more
successful is their typology of Internet applications: connecting
people with information, services, goods, and other people. It is
a theme common in Internet circles, and it serves their chapter well.
|
| |
Their description
of the heterogeneity of Web sites is much less true now than it was
2, 3, or 5 years ago and grows less true with each day. The growth
of advertising, commercial presence, and surveillance of individuals’
behavior on the Web are largely responsible for this change.
|
| 189 |
their example
of the community of observers of the Shoemaker-Levy comet is a good
one, especially for its conclusion that it is "good for the practice
of science to have more people aware of its hard work and new ideas."
|
| 190 |
N&O’s
mention of personal publication underscores the need for upstream
(publication) capabilities as well as downstream (consumer/reader)
capabilities in the Web – it is this serious lowering of barriers
to entry that makes the Web so new. The proliferation of millions
of pages and the inherent, logical limitations of search engines,
however, make it very difficult to be heard and seen in this cacophony.
|
| |
In the section
on connecting people with services, they refer obliquely to value-added
services and portals – here Nardi & O’Day’s somewhat limiting
backgrounds emerge. Practitioners in our field would like much more
on these and related concepts.
|
| 191 |
they make
an important point that "many people want to share what
they can do and what they know best, because they like doing it and
feel rewarded by it" (emphasis in the original). This theme of
intrinsic reward is among the most important in the book as a whole.
|
| 192 |
their admiration
for Amazon.com, although qualified by their slightly snide rip at
the quality of the books available there, should have also included
some mention of the threats to privacy that Amazon’s database poses
as well as the inexorable increase in prices that all online book
sellers have experienced. A 1999 imprint book, even if we presume
it was written in 1998, should have noted such concerns there.
|
| |
Their description
of Amazon is more than a bit breathless, although their mention of
recommender/group evaluation capabilities of the site is useful.
|
| 194ff |
they speak
rather blithely about medical information on the net – while support
groups and the like are ideal uses of the net’s functionalities, the
question of reliability and authenticity of information (its cognitive
authority) is not seriously engaged (but see pp. 198-199)
|
| 195 |
N&O refer
to the wide-spread belief that the Internet "does not meet the
needs of women, people of color, senior citizens, or the economically
advantaged." Do you agree or disagree with N&O’s counter-examples?
Why?
|
| |
They even
go so far as to say that "[w]hen economic and educational issues
[sic] are dealt with, the Internet is no more culturally biased
than the telephone." What is your reaction to this assertion,
including the underlying assumption about the telephone?
|
| 196 |
Nardi &
O’Day refer briefly to universal service efforts in telephony in the
U.S. Despite such efforts and their longevity (almost 70 years since
the 1934 Communications Act), only about 90 - 92% of U.S. households
that want telephone service have it. Only somewhat ironically, about
95 – 97% have at least one TV.
|
| 197 |
their assertion
about how one information source supplements rather than replaces
others is key.
|
| 198 |
I was somewhat
surprised that such stunningly awkward phrases such as "forward
progress" survived editing. This chapter, unlike the others,
seems rather rushed in composition and editing. More than a bit disappointing
. . .
|
| 198-199 |
although they
somewhat engage the question of cognitive authority here (see pp.
194ff), they really duck the question. Nardi & O’Day rightly ground
their description in the ability of a reference librarian to help
her clients find, evaluate, synthesize, and use information. Other
than this example, however, N&O never really engage the question
of reliability and authentication of net info.
|
| 199 |
I was stunned
to read that they believe that Internet use is "a counterweight
against the uniformity and standardization that Ellul foresaw."
While I understand their point, the overwhelming homogenization of
the Web grows inexorably. What do you think?
|
| 199ff |
they provide
many specific examples to support their painting of the Web as diverse
– as I’ve tried to make clear, I wish I could share their optimism,
but I cannot. See their discussion on pp. 203ff.
|
| 202 |
but their
underlying point is absolutely on target – "A lot is missed when
we do not look empirically at specific uses of specific technologies."
That is the main methodological and "take away" theme of
the book.
|
| 203 |
like many
others, I do not have a high opinion of Bill Gates’ The Road Ahead.
If you haven’t read it, despite its many shortcomings, you
might find it interesting reading.
|
| 205 |
N&O particularly
criticize what they call the book’s rhetoric of inevitability. After
re-reading Nardi & O’Day, I’m still somewhat surprised that they
spent so much space refuting Gates – his book isn’t worth the space
in itself but only as a type of work and one that garnered a lot of
attention. They especially undermine its commercialist assumptions.
My presumption is, however, that the audiences for their book is quite
different from the audiences for his
. |
| 207 |
they see the
net as "an important source of diversity in an increasingly flat
and packaged world. . . . If we nurture and defend local ecologies,
the global network enabled by the Internet will avoid becoming a monocultural
hegemony primarily devoted to commerce." Perhaps . . . That is
the only chance we have, but I’m not convinced that it will ever be
enough.
|
Notes
|
|
| 224 |
Note 11 –
Nardi & O’Day refer to the work of Esther Dyson. She is extremely
influential, especially in the cryptographic and privacy worlds. Many
people disagree with many of her conclusions, myself included, but
her work is well worth reading.
|
| 225 |
Note 13 –
they refer quickly to the complexity of the original Luddites’ ideology.
Please refer to the class notes in the syllabus about them if you’re
interested.
|
| • |
Chapter
13: "Conclusion"
|
| 209 |
Nardi &
O’Day characterized their experiences as leaving them with an informed
ambivalence about technology and people’s attitudes towards it – recall
their earlier description of themselves as "critical friends"
of technology (ix)
|
| |
it is their
focus on research into the local uses, adaptations, and effects of
technology that have served as the focus of the book and have led
them to this attitude
|
| 210-211 |
they encourage
us to be more reflective about our local practices related to technology,
reminding us of their first chapter about the movie Metropolis
|
| 211 |
their story,
from their point of view, is finally an optimistic one – they believe
that their research has shown that technologies have been "adapted
to fit well with local practices and values. . . . [V]irtually everyone
can influence their own ecologies." Do you agree? Why or why
not?
|
| |
They see such
an attitude as a necessary antidote to the all-too-common rhetoric
of inevitability, whether positive or negative. In the opinion of
many, this rhetoric characterizes our field as well as others.
|
| |
N&O also
remind us that one of the strengths of their ecology metaphor is that
it reminds us that local environments are composed of people, practices,
values, and technologies, all of which co-evolve (p. 213 and passim)
|
| |
Let me remind
you that the concept of practice is quite important in social analyses
and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Wenger’s Communities
of Practice is a good take on this important idea.
|
| 212 |
one of the
fundamental challenges they offer to us in LIS is the need for constant
and probing strategic questioning about technologies – this imperative
includes examining technology from the perspectives of as many persons
in the ecology as possible (p. 215)
|
| |
here they
rhapsodize again about librarians as a keystone species – reconsider
why
|
| 216 |
another perspective
on their book is that it aims to help us develop "a heightened
awareness of our surroundings," one of the major goals of systematic
inquiry/research
|
| |
it may be
useful here to reiterate one of the most valuable lessons from the
book for information professionals: "As long as we think we do
not have enough expertise to engage in substantive discussions about
technology, we are effectively prevented from having an impact on
the directions it may take" (p. 13). Both individually and as
a group, we cannot afford the luxury of despair; instead, Nardi &
O’Day, like others we have read this semester, call us to action and
give us the means to start. |
