Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

study:social_informatics_2007_ntu [2017/12/28 11:35] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +== SOCIAL INFORMATICS 資訊社會學 (2007-fall) NTU 
  
 +**Keyword:​** [[:social informatics]],​ [[:STS]]
 +
 +**Course website**: https://​ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/​961LIS_SI
 +
 +**Instractor**:​ 林奇秀 ​  ​ cslin[at]mail.lis.ntu.edu.tw
 +
 +**Description** This course is to introduce you to the major theoretical and research approaches in the current social informatics research. Social Informatics is an interdisciplinary field that examines the design, uses, and consequences of information & communication technologies (ICTs) – broadly defined, and that takes into account ICTs' interaction with institutional and cultural contexts (Kling, 2001). \\ This semester two sections are offered (LIS students especially graduate students will be given priority.) Section Two is reserved for professional masters'​ students. Two sections, however, will use the same course site so that you can collaborate and share resources for learning. ​
 +
 +
 +==readings==
 +===Week 1===
 + ​(2006/​9/​19):​ Course Introduction
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Berger, P.L. (1963). Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. N.Y.: Doubleday. NTU Library has a pretty nice Chinese translation:​ 黃樹仁,​劉雅靈合譯 (1982). 社會學導引:​人文取向的透視. 台北市:​巨流.
 +** Theories Used in IS Research. Available at: http://​www.istheory.yorku.ca/​default.htm
 +
 +===Week 2===
 + ​(2006/​9/​26):​ What is Social Informatics?​
 +* [Required]
 +** Kling, R. (2003). “Social informatics.” In A. Kent, H. Lancour, W. Z. Nasri & J. E. Daily (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Also freely available at: http://​rkcsi.indiana.edu/​archive/​SI/​si2001.html
 +** [[:​study:​Sawyer,​ S., & Eschenfelder,​ K.R. (2002). Social informatics]]:​ perspectives,​ examples, and trends. In B. Cronin & D. Shaw (Eds.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, v.36, p.392-425.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics:​ http://​rkcsi.indiana.edu/​
 +** Kling, R. (1999). “What is social informatics and why does it matter?” D-Lib Magazine, 5:1. Available at: http://​www.dlib.org/​dlib/​january99/​kling/​01kling.html
 +** Kling, R. (2000) “Learning about information technologies and social change: the contribution of social informatics.” Information Society, 16:3, p.217-233.
 +* [Further reading]
 +** Kling, Rob, Rosenbaum, Howard, & Sawyer, Steve (Eds) (1987). Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
 +
 +===Week 3 ===
 +(2006/​10/​03):​ Debates, Metaphors, & Epistemologies in ICTs/SI Research
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Kling,​ R. (1996). Hopes and horrors]]: technological utopianism and anti-utopianism in narratives of computerization.” In Kling, R. (Ed). Computerization and Controversy:​ Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd ed. (San Diego: Academic Press), p.40-58.
 +** [[:​study:​Nardi,​ B. & O'Day, V. (2000). Information Ecologies]]:​ Using Technology with Heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ch.3: “A Matter of Metaphor: Technology as Tool, Text, System, Ecology,” p.25-48.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life of Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
 +
 +=== Week 4===
 + ​(2006/​10/​10):​ National holiday (no class meeting)
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +===Week 5: Actor Network Theory (ANT)===
 + ​(2006/​10/​17):​ Actor Network Theory (ANT)
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Walsham,​ G. (1997). Actor-Network Theory and IS research]]: current status and future prospects. In A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman and Hall, p.466-480.
 +** [[:​study:​Walsham,​ G., & Sahay, S. (1999). GIS for district-level administration in India]]: problems and opportunities. MIS Quarterly, 23:1, p.39-65.
 +** [[:​study:​Doolin,​ B. (1999). Sociotechnical networks and information management in health care]]. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 9:2, p.95-114.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** [[:​study:​Tuomi,​ I. (2001). Internet, innovation, and open source]]: Actors in the network. First Monday, 6(1), 1. (Available at: http://​www.firstmonday.org/​issues/​issue6_1/​tuomi/​)
 +** Westup, C. (1999). “Knowledge,​ legitimacy and progress? Requirements as inscriptions in information systems development.” Information Systems Journal, 9:1, p.35-54.
 +
 +
 +
 +=== Week 6: ANT===
 + ​(2006/​10/​24):​ ANT (Continued)
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Callon,​ M., & Law, J. (1989). On the construction of sociotechnical networks]]: content and context revisited.” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Science Past and Present, 8, p.57-83.
 +** [[:​study:​Latour,​ B. (1991). Technology is society made durable]]. In J. Law (Ed.). A Sociology of Monsters. Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, London: Routledge, p.103-131.
 +** [[:​study:​Doolin,​ B., & Lowe, A. (2002). To reveal is to critique]]: Actor-Network Theory and critical information systems research.” Journal of Information Technology, 17:2, p.69-78.
 +* [Further reading]
 +** [[:​study:​Latour,​ B. (1987). Science in Action]]: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Howard University Press.
 +
 +
 +
 +=== Week 7: ST ===
 + ​(2006/​10/​31):​ Structuration Theory (ST)
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Rose,​ J. (1998). Evaluating the contribution of Structuration Theory to the information systems discipline]]. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Information Systems (Available at: http://​www.cs.auc.dk/​~jeremy/​pdf%20files/​ECIS1998.pdf)
 +** [[:​study:​Orlikowski,​ W. (1996). Learning from Notes]]: organizational issues in groupware implementation.” In R. Kling, (Ed) Computerization and Controversy:​ Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd ed. (San Diego: Academic Press), p.173-189.
 +** [[:​study:​Barley,​ S.R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring]]:​ evidence from observation of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31:1, p.78-108.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). “The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.” Organization Science, 3:3, 398-427.
 +** Pozzebon, M., & Pinsonneault,​ A. (2005). “Challenges in conducting empirical work using Structuration Theory: learning from IT research.” Organization Studies, 26:9, p.1353-1376.
 +* [Further reading]
 +** [[:​study:​Giddens,​ A. (1984). The Constitution of Society]]. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +=== Week 8: Adaptive ST ===
 +(2006/​11/​07):​ ST, Adaptive ST, & Institution Theory
 +
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Orlikowski,​ W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures]]:​ a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11:4, p.404-428.
 +** [[:​study:​DeSanctis,​ G., & Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use]]: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science, 5:2, p.121-147.
 +** Scott, W.R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Read: Chapter 3)
 +* [Further readings]
 +** Scott, W.R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 +** Powell, W. W. & Dimaggio, P. J. (Eds) (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
 +
 +
 +
 +===Week 9===
 +(2006/​11/​14):​ Culture, Value, & Social/​Cultural Capital ​
 +
 +* [Required]
 +** Kumar, K., Van Dissel, H., & Bielli., P. (1998) “The merchant of Prato-revisited:​ toward a third rationality of information systems.” MIS Quarterly, 22:2, p.199-225.
 +** Schiff, L., Van House, N., & Butler, M. (1997). “Understanding complex information environments:​ a social analysis of watershed planning.” Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries, N.Y.: ACM Press, p.161-168.
 +** Paling, S., & Nilan, M. (2006). "​Technology,​ values, and genre change: the case of small literary magazines."​ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57:7, p.862-872.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Kvasny, L., & Truex, D. (2001). “Defining away the digital divide: a content analysis of institutional influences on popular representations of technology.” In Russo, N.L., Fitzgerald, B., & DeGross, J.I. (Eds), Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development:​ the Social and Organizational Perspective,​ Boston: Kluwer Academic, p. 399-414.
 +** Nakhaie, M.R., & Pike, R.M. (1998) “Social origins, social statuses and home computer access and use.” Canadian Journal of Sociology, 23:4, p.427-450.
 +
 +
 +
 +=== Week 10: SST=== ​
 +
 +(2006/​11/​21):​ Social Shaping of Technology
 +
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Pinch,​ T., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts]]:​ Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 +** [[:​study:​Kilker,​ J., & Gay, G. (1998). The Social Construction of a Digital Library]]: A Case Study Examining Implications for Evaluation. Information Technology and Libraries, 17(2), 60-70.
 +** [[:​study:​Kling,​ R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time]]: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1996). “Users as agents of technological change: the social construction of the automobile in the rural United States.” Technology and Culture, 37:4, p.763-795.
 +** Orlikowski, W., & Gash, D.C. (1994) “Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations.” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12:2, p.174-207.
 +** Van House, N.A. (2004). “Science and Technology Studies and Information Studies.” In Cronin. B. (Ed), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, p.3-86.
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +===Week 11: Socio-Technical Approaches ===
 +Socio-Technical = 社會-技術性 取向
 +
 +(2006/​11/​28):​ Socio-Technical Approaches (starring the STIN model)
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Markus,​ M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation]]. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430-444.
 +** [[:​study:​Kling,​ R., McKim, G., & King, A. (2003). A bit more to it]]: Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology : JASIST, 54(1), 47.
 +** [[:​study:​Kling,​ R., & Courtright, C. (2003). Group Behavior and Learning in Electronic Forums]]: A Sociotechnical Approach. The information society, 19(3), 221-235.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S., (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective,​ part I: the causes.” MIS Quarterly, 1:3, p.17-32
 +** Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S., (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective,​ part II: the application of Socio-Technical Theory.” MIS Quarterly, 1:4, p.11-28.
 +** Clegg, C. W. (2000). “Sociotechnical principles for systems design.” Applied Ergonomics, 31:5, p.463-477.
 +
 +
 +===Week 12 ===
 +
 +(2006/​12/​05):​ Theories of Social Networks
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Pettigrew,​ K. E. (2000). Lay Information Provision in Community Settings]]: How Community Health Nurses Disseminate Human Services Information to the Elderly. Library Quarterly, 70(1), 47-85.
 +** Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). “The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice.” Organization Science, 7:2, p.119-135.
 +** Haythornthwaite,​ C. (1996). “Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information exchange.” Library and Information Science Research, 18:4, p.323-342.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Granovetter,​ M.S. (1982). "The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited."​ In Marsden, P.V., & Lin, N. (Eds). Social Structure and Network Analysis, Beverly Hill, CA: Sage, p.105-130.
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +===Week 13: Information use ===
 +
 +(2006/​12/​12):​ Social Aspects of Information Use
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Taylor,​ R. S. (1991). Information use environments]]. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences (pp. 217-255). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
 +** [[:​study:​Daft,​ R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretive systems]]. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295.
 +** [[:​study:​MacIntosh-Murray,​ A., & Choo, C. W. (2005). Information Behavior in the Context of Improving Patient Safety]]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(12), 1332-1345.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Rosenbaum, H. (1993). “Information Use Environments and Structuration:​ toward an integration of Taylor and Giddens.” Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 30, p235-245.
 +** MacIntosh-Murray,​ Anu. (2005). “Organizational Sense Making and Information Use.” In Fisher, K.E., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, L. (Eds), Theories of Information Behavior, Medford, NJ: Information Today, p. 265-269.
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +===Week 14 ===
 +(2006/​12/​19):​ SI-Oriented Library Studies
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​O'​Day,​ V. L., & Nardi, B. A. (2003). An Ecological Perspective on Digital Libraries]]. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. Van House & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation (pp. 65-82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 +** [[:​study:​Star,​ S. L., Bowker, G. C., & Neumann, L. J. (2003). Transparency beyond the Individual Level of Scale]]: Convergence between Information Artifacts and Communities of Practice. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. Van House & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation (pp. 241-269). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 +** [[:​study:​Albrechtsen,​ H., & Jacob, E. K. (1998). The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library]]. Library Trends, 47(2), 293-312.
 +* [Recommended]
 +** Bishop, A., Star, S.L. (1996). “Social informatics of digital library use and infrastructure.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 31, p.301-401.
 +** Nardi, Bonnie & O’Day, Vickie. (2000). Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ch.1, 4-6, & 7.
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +===Week 15 ===
 +(2006/​12/​26):​ Paper, Documents & Genres in a Digital World
 +* [Required]
 +** [[:​study:​Levy,​ D. M. (2003). Documents and Libraries]]:​ A Sociotechnical Perspective. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. Van House & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation (pp. 25-42). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 +** [[:​study:​Harper,​ R. H. R., O'​Hara,​ K. P. A., Sellen, A. J., & Duthie, D. J. R. (1997). Toward the paperless hospital]]? , 78(6), 762-767.
 +** [[:​study:​Yates,​ J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of Organizational Communication]]:​ A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media. The Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-326.
 +* [Further readings]
 +** [[:​study:​Sellen,​ A. J., & Harper, R. H. R. (2002). The Myth of the Paperless Office]]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 +** Levy, D. (2001). Scrolling Forward: Making Sense of Documents in the Digital Age. N.Y.: Arcade.
 +** Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing Genres through Organizations:​ A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 +** [[:​study:​Bishop,​ A. P., Van House, N. A., & Buttenfield,​ B. P. (Eds.). (2003). Digital Library Use]]: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 +
 +
 +{{tag>​social_informatics STS}}