Studying technology:

Bringing together SCOT (agency) and SNA (structure)

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)

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.

The agency-structural divide in social theory

• Example of agency-structure theory:– Giddens‘ Structuration theory.

– Bourdieu‘s 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.

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.

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)

SCOT, continued:

• Technological frame• Social worlds• Interpretive flexibility:

– technologies mean different things to different actors.

• Stability and closure• Larger social context

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?

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?

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

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

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?

Case study: Connected Kids

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.

• 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 don‘t know“

Findings: multiple interpretations

• No Communication:– I haven’t heard anything recently...I’d 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 they…come to me only when they need something, but don’t 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).

–

• Online information tool:– Connected Kids is a place where kids can go to learn about

job opportunities, education, and activities in the Troy area. It’ll 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 another’s 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).

Marketing4/12

Uncertain/Unclear6/12

Uncertain/UnclearJune 2000 7/27

MarketingMay – June 2001 5/32

DoubtsJune 2000 8/27

DoubtsMay – June 2001 8/32

Online informationJune 2000 10/27

Online informationMay – June 2001 14/32

Coordination/CollaborationJune 2000 7/27

Coordination/CollaborationMay-June 2001 12/32

February 2000Public meeting held for CK project.

MarketingJune 2000 8/27

Uncertain/UnclearMay-June 2001 5/32

October 2000Focus group meetings held.

February 2001Jim writes email re: focus groups.

No CommunicationJune 2000 2/27

No CommunicationJune 2000 5/32

}

} Coordination/Collaboration 3/12

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

• 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?

• 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?

Network characteristics across ties

GE4 LE3 Give$ Receive$ Clients Programming Info (T) Collaborate (T)

Density .15 .22 .08 .09 .21 .31 .29 .31Centralization .38 .55 .45 .38 .35 .24 .47 .30Mean Indegree 3.5 5 1.8 2 4.9 7 6.7 7.1SD Indegree 2.6 2 1.7 3 2.4 3.9 4 4.3RangeIndegree

0-9 1-9 0-4 0-12 0-9 1-16 1-17 1-16

# of isolates(indegree)

4 0 3 11 1 0 0 0

Centrality, centralization,density

2001: Central. = .32

density = .07

2002(GE4) Central = .39

Density = .37

2002: (LE3)Central = .57

Density= .67

In-degree Org Trust Interpretation CK Perception(1-7)

CK Adoption(1-7)

2001

Top 3, M=4.2, SD=3

M = 8SD = 5.6

M=5.2SD=0.9

M = 5.7SD= 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

GE4, M = 4,SD = 3

M = 8SD = 5

M=5.2, SD=1

M= 5.5, SD=1.3

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

M=5.2, SD=1

M= 5.5, SD=1.3

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 -- --

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?

• 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

• CK‘s 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.

Agency Structure