The main reason that i love blogging is because it forces me to write down some random things without trying to formalize them, contextualize them or operate explicitly reflexive. The structure of academic writing requires so much framing that i get writing hang-ups. Given the lack of formality and the laziness with which i spat out random thoughts, i should not be surprised when i’m misread. All the same, it always takes me for a loop and i immediately go into introspective mode asking myself if i should be far more careful about what i blog. Of course, i know that this would mean far fewer (if any) blog entries about ideas. Still, i find myself gulping and needing to respond. Right now is one of those moments.

Amidst holiday festivities, i shot off a response to cory’s call. Apprently, it spiraled around other people and made them think. This morning, i got labeled a technological determinist. The big joke about technological determinism is that anyone who knows what the term means would never identify as such. In fact, it’s like the canonical insult amongst academics in this field.

In rereading my entry, i can see how my call can be read in that way, even though that is a precisely inaccurate reading of my views. This made me wonder how many other people misread my commentary to fit their structure of thought. Thus, i feel the need to clarify my position, if only for myself to be a bit more coherent.

First, for the academics, i certainly distance myself from technological determinism, although i also quibble with social constructivism. In many ways, i feel as though a pure social constructivist stance dismisses any role that technology creators have in shaping society based on their design decisions. In many ways, i feel as though this is because social constructivism is used as a retrospective framework, not a projective one. In other words, retrospectively, we can consider the vast array of relevant social groups and thus pull responsibility out of the picture. Yet, this is not a tool that many technologists know how to utilize going forward.

For those who aren’t aware of social constructivism, one aspect of the process is to consider all of the relevant social groups (users, creators, non-users, politicians, etc.) and how they played a role in the production and dissemination of a technology. The classic piece on this method is Bijker’s “King of the Road: The social construction of the Safety Bicycle.”

If you look at how technology is created, there is a consideration of one’s market, or target market. Technology is designed for a perceived audience. This is good! What is missing is an extensive consideration of all of the different players who may come to participate. In other words, we don’t consider how our non-target groups might engage with our creation. We simply hope that they engage with the same behavior as the target. Furthermore, we tend to target a behavior, not just a group (if academic, think configuring the user).

From where i stand, there are some amazing tools for social scientists to use to study technology, but rarely are they used to help create technology. This is foolish. Technology creators are not idiots. Their work is certainly affected by the social environment. Yet, their creations also do affect the social culture. It is a bi-directional, non-deterministic process. Unfortunately, i feel as though too many science studies folks just wait to see what will be created before studying it, rather than helping the creators think through the environment in which they are creating.

Thus, to clarify. My call to technologists is to actually flesh out the relevant social groups, not just the target markets. When people have contradictory use scenarios, you cannot simply hope that the one you want will play out. Nor should you try to constrain the allowed behavior to that one alone. You must consider both types of users, how they will affect one another and what the consequences might be. This is not an exact science because there are plenty of non-deterministic paths that the technology can take, but being awake to the different groups and their interplay is key. Furthermore, this approach makes the technologist far more aware of the emergence of new, unexpected behavior and more prepared to determine how to move forward now that new, unexpected relevant social groups come into play.

Hindsight is fantastic for understanding a technology’s path to stabilization. Unfortunately, though, technology creators do not have that retrospective privilege. Thus, it should not be surprising that deterministic philosophies emerge from this group. They want their technology to solve a problem and they see a direct link from technology to problem solution. Yet, the perspective from those studying technology retrospectively and those moving it forward would do the other quite well. Understanding how to be aware of relevant social groups as one moves forward is exceptionally valuable and will prevent the feelings of frustration as users “refuse to behave.” They aren’t refusing… they are just challenging the projected path of use.