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 theater 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 widespread 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 counterexamples?
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 coevolve (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. |
