Studying technology:

1
Studying technology

• Bringing together SCOT (agency) and SNA
  (structure)

2
Agency, and Actor

• Ones ability to make a difference in the world
  (Giddens).
• Entities that acquire meaning in relation to
  others (Structuralism, Social constructivism).
• Individual, parts of systems, active, conscious.
• Studying technology (STS) social construction of
  technology (SCOT) and actor-network (ANT)

3
Structure or structural

• Lasting patterns or regularities in relationships
  that constrain or provide opportunities for
  actors (Wasserman Faust, 1996).
• Patterned social relations that become separate
  from the life-world and exert their own power
  (Habermas).
• The sum total of social ties and the recurrent
  patterns of these ties (Berger, 1967)
• External, constraining, patterned, emergent,
  formal, informal
• STS no over-arching theory as yet.

4
The agency-structural divide in social theory

• Example of agency-structure theory
• Giddens Structuration theory.
• Bourdieus Habitus and Field work.
• And in field of science and technology studies?
• Klein and Kleinman (2002) structural approaches
  included in SCOT framework
• Martin Scott (1992) structural approach
  compared to ANT.

5
Dominant theories in STS

• Actor-network theory.
• A form of semiotics.
• Actors are network effects, they acquire all
  attributes from their relations with other
  entities
• networks are fluid, composed of heterogeneous
  elements (techno and social), through these
  actor-networks technologies emerge.

6
Social construction of technology (SCOT)

• Do not assume prior structures exist.
• Actors interact, mutually shape one another, and
  technology emerges from these interactions.
• Technology can also interact with actors/actants
  in a seamless web.
• Analytical distinction between actors and
  technology (unlike ANT)

7
SCOT, continued

• Technological frame
• Social worlds
• Interpretive flexibility
• technologies mean different things to different
  actors.
• Stability and closure
• Larger social context

8
Research questions

• SCOT How are actors interpreting this
  technology?
• How do these interpretations shape technology
  design and development?
• Do these interactions change overtime due to
  social interactions?

9
A structural theory not within STS Social
network analysis

• A social network is a set of individuals or
  groups who are connected to one another through
  meaningful relationships (Wellman Berkowitz,
  1988).
• Trust, family, exchanges, import/export, disease,
  information.
• Emphasis on informal social networks, as opposed
  to larger, formal structures (e.g. political
  systems, institutions, education, religion)
• What are the patterns in these relationships?
• A focus on regular patterns, which give rise to
  structures.
• How do the structures of these relationships
  enable or constrain actors?

10
Common elements to watch for include

• Actor/ego characteristics
• Attributes
• Tie characteristics
• Quality and quantity
• Dyad and Triad configurations
• George Simmel
• Network characteristics
• cohesive, vertical/horizontal, core/periphery,
  size

11
SNA in studying technology

• What can we learn from a structural approach to
  studying technology?
• Diffusion of innovations
• centrality and weak ties
• with SCOT perspective
• structure and actors interpretation

12
Research questions

• SNA how are these actors relating to one
  another?
• how does network structure influence the way
  people interpret technology,
• how does network structure influence the way the
  network constructs the technology?

13
Case study Connected Kids
14
SCOT methods

• Open-ended interviews focusing on actors roles
  in the community and their perception of
  Connected Kids.
• 3 rounds of interviews
• March 2000, June 2000, May-June 2001
• 37 respondents from the following areas
• youth-service agencies, local school districts,
  local government, and faculty members from RPI.
• Panel study, so shifts in sample between rounds.
• Emails, focus groups transcripts, public
  meetings, web sites.

15
Findings multiple interpretations

• Doubts
• why is such a complicated technology needed,
  when a simpler system such as a binder filled
  with flyers and press releases of the different
  organizations could be used. (personal
  interview March, 2000).
• Uncertainty
• No idea.
• I dont know

16

• No Communication
• I havent heard anything recently...Id like to
  hear more. I provided some letters of support for
  this project but never heard anything back in
  terms of an update or feedback. So it seems like
  theycome to me only when they need something,
  but dont follow up on their contacts to let
  people know the latest state of things. Where are
  the grants going? The clarity of objectives is
  vague. It seems like one-way communication
  (personal interview, June 2000).

17

• Online information tool
• Connected Kids is a place where kids can go to
  learn about job opportunities, education, and
  activities in the Troy area. Itll help them
  learn about something (personal interview, June
  2000).
• Collaboration tool
• It could help connecting youth to the different
  services out there. I'd use it for referrals, for
  strengthening relations with different
  organizations. Through learning of one anothers
  services, not-for-profits could collaborate and
  thus help eliminate duplication of services
  (personal interview, June 2001).
• Marketing
• I think it's going to be, more than anything,
  another avenue to advertise our organization. I
  see it more as a marketing advantage more than
  anything else (personal interview June, 2000).

18

February 2000 Public meeting held for CK project.
Marketing 4/12
Uncertain/Unclear 6/12
Coordination/ Collaboration 3/12
Uncertain/Unclear June 2000 7/27
Marketing June 2000 8/27
Doubts June 2000 8/27
Online information June 2000 10/27
Coordination/Collaboration June 2000 7/27
October 2000 Focus group meetings held.
No Communication June 2000 2/27

February 2001 Jim writes email re focus groups.
Marketing May June 2001 5/32
Uncertain/Unclear May-June 2001 5/32
Online information May June 2001 14/32
Doubts May June 2001 8/32
Coordination/Collaboration May-June 2001 12/32
No Communication June 2000 5/32
19
SNA method and findings

• June 2001 and June 2002
• questionnaire administered among same group of
  actors
• Questions asked on their relations of trust,
  communication, resource exchanges.
• Questions on their perceptions of CK and
  willingness to adopt CK
• Analyses (in UCINET and SPSS) included
• Developing centrality scores for the actors.
• Analyzing network characteristics (density and
  centralization).
• Dyad and Triad analysis.
• Analyzing correlations

20

• SOCIAL CONTACT
• On a scale of 1 - 7, please rate the frequency of
  communication contact you have had with each
  individual on this list in the past 6 months.
• RESOURCES
• Within the past year, have any of these
  organizations funded your organization in any
  way? Vice versa?
• Another way organizations collaborate is through
  programming. Within the past year, has your
  organization collaborated with this other
  organization via programming?
• With whom do you share clients, in particular,
  with whom on this list do you refer clients and
  vice versa?
• TRUST
• Suppose you were looking for partners and/or
  collaborators for a joint project. Which of the
  people on this list are you certain will do what
  you require (what you believe they should do)
  even without writing a contract to clearly
  specify their obligations?
• Which of these people are you certain can provide
  you with reliable information regarding issues
  pertaining to your work with youth?

21

• PERCEPTIONS OF CK (1-7 Likert scale items)
• The Connected Kids database will save me time
  with my work.
• The benefits of the Connected Kids database will
  far exceed its costs.
• The Connected Kids database is necessary in
  meeting my clients needs and wants.
• The Connected Kids database will be consistent
  with my current work practices.
• I understand the Connected Kids database well.
• ADOPTION OF CK (1-7 Likert scale items)
• Given the way things stand today, how likely
  would you be to recommend that your organization
  use the Connected Kids database?
• Given the way things stand today, how likely
  would you be to recommend to other youth service
  organizations that they use the Connected Kids
  database?
• Given the way things stand today, how likely
  would you be to use the Connected Kids database
  once it is completed and made available to you?
• Given the way things stand today, how likely
  would you be to use this Connected Kids database
  to coordinate your services with other
  organizations youth services?
• Given the way things stand today, how likely
  would you be to recommend the Connected Kids
  database to kids
• Given the way things stand today, how likely
  would you be to recommend the Connected Kids
  database to parents?
• Given the way things stand today, how likely
  would you be to recommend the Connected Kids
  database to teachers, guidance counselors, or
  other social support personnel?

22
Network characteristics across ties
23
2001 Central. .32 density .07
2002 (GE4) Central .39 Density .37
2002 (LE3)Central .57 Density .67
Centrality, centralization, density
24
In-degree Org Trust Interpretation CK Perception (1-7) CK Adoption (1-7)
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Top 3, M4.2, SD3 M 8 SD 5.6 M5.2 SD0.9 M 5.7 SD 1.2
Actor 1 9 Gov. 20 Coordinate Info. Source 6 7
Actor 2 9 Gov 8 Coordinate Info. Source 6 6
Actor 3 8 House 14 Coordinate Info. Source 6 7
2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
GE4, M 4,SD 3 M 8 SD 5 M5.2, SD1 M 5.5, SD1.3
Actor 4 12 (le3) , 9 (ge4) RPI 20 Coordinate Info. Source -- --
Actor 3 11 House 12 Coordinate Info. Source 5 6
Actor 2 11 Gov 15 Coordinate Info. Source 7 6
Actor 5 8 Gov 15 Coordinate Info. Source 7 6
LE3, M 6.6, SD 2.6 M5.2, SD1 M 5.5, SD1.3
Actor 6 10 Youth 12 Info. Source 3 2
Actor 7 11 Youth 16 Coordinate Info. Source 4 6
Actor 8 12 RPI 16 Coordinate Info. Source -- --
25
Discussion

• Why are some actors more central?
• What potential influence will Connected Kids
  have, on a structural level?
• How do these structural considerations inform
  SCOT findings?

26
Agency Structure

• Jim and Teri decide to make CK participatory
• Youth service actors communicate their wants,
  needs, etc. regarding CK.
• Community will reacte to CK

• RPI and Government
• decide upon CK (top-down)
• Centrality in strong ties coincides with formal
  structures
• Centrality in weak ties reveals an informal
  structure

• CKs functioning and interface altered, basic
  goal and purpose remain virtually the same.
• CK can eventually influence more on the informal
  structural level.
• Actors might reject CK once it has been
  introduced into the community, or use it in ways
  it is not intended.