Download - The New Informatics

Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems

Volume 8 | Issue 2 Article 3

1996

The New InformaticsBo DahlbomGooteborg University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis

This material is brought to you by the Journals at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in Scandinavian Journal ofInformation Systems by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationDahlbom, Bo (1996) "The New Informatics," Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems: Vol. 8 : Iss. 2 , Article 3.Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol8/iss2/3

http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fsjis%2Fvol8%2Fiss2%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol8?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fsjis%2Fvol8%2Fiss2%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol8/iss2?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fsjis%2Fvol8%2Fiss2%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol8/iss2/3?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fsjis%2Fvol8%2Fiss2%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fsjis%2Fvol8%2Fiss2%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol8/iss2/3?utm_source=aisel.aisnet.org%2Fsjis%2Fvol8%2Fiss2%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]%3E

© Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1996, 8(2):29–48

The discipline that used to be called “infor-mation systems” is changing its identity. InSweden, we have emphasized this reorienta-tion by changing our name from “administra-tive data processing” to “informatics.” I willattempt to characterize this new informatics,describing it as a theory and design orientedstudy of information technology use, an arti-ficial science with the intertwined complex ofpeople and information technology as its sub-ject matter. I will end by giving some sugges-tions for how to think of a new curriculum.

Looking around in Scandinavia in theSpring of 1997, it is obvious that re-search on information systems—infor-matics we now say in Sweden—is begin-ning to settle down into a rather rich va-riety of different approaches. Even ifthey are constantly changing, even ifthey are overlapping, merging and sepa-rating in a somewhat confusing manner,I still think it would be rather easy tocharacterize the different approaches in away that most members of the communi-ty would accept. Furthermore, I thinkthat such an attempt to define the differ-ent research approaches would furthertheir development and encourage debatebetween them.

Such a reflection on current researchorientations is important, I think, in viewof the fact that our discipline has recently

The New Informatics

Bo DahlbomDepartment of Informatics

Göteborg University, 411 80 Göteborg, [email protected]

1

Dahlbom: The New Informatics

Published by AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), 1996

B. Dahlbom 30

undergone some radical changes. Thosechanges are indicated by our changingthe name of the discipline in Swedenfrom “administrative data processing” to“informatics.” In what follows I want togive my own, very personal, view of this“new informatics,” of how I see it emerg-ing and what I hope it will become. I willdo so against the general background ofresearch in information systems and ev-olution of computer technology use, butmy perspective will be mainly Scandina-vian. Both research orientations and evo-lution of use differ radically from onecountry to another, and I am not trying topaint a complete picture, nor present auniversal paradigm for research in ourfield.

The change of name was not un-controversial. Protests were heard fromcomputer scientists, and I myself certain-ly hesitated. Since “informatics” is theterm used on the European continent,and in Norway, for all the computer sci-ence disciplines, was it not both rude andsilly to use this very general term toname what is obviously a sub-discipline?Would “social informatics” not havebeen a better term for a discipline focus-ing on the use of information technolo-gy?

Perhaps, but “social informatics”sounds too much like a social science tome, without the design orientation so im-portant in our discipline. Engineeringhas always been dominated by a produc-tion perspective (which indeed is onlynatural in an industrial era). Perhaps it istime (now that we enter a postindustrialera) to argue that engineering shouldchange its focus to that of technologyuse? When information technology isused by people exchanging services,more than as control mechanisms in pro-

duction systems, then computer engi-neers will have to become experts on hu-man technology use. If so, then we candrop the “social” in “social informatics,”and let those who want to forget aboutuse add a prefix instead. (See Dahlbom& Mathiassen (1997) where this positionis developed.)

The choice of a name for a discipline(company, football team, person) is moreimportant than one might first think,sometimes contributing substantially tothe developing identity of the discipline.(Traditional cultures all knew this, ofcourse, and sometimes we modern dowell to be a bit more appreciative of theirinsights.) It would have been nice to finda name that could unite and strengthenthe various research approaches aroundthe world that used to be related by acommon interest in “information sys-tems.” I doubt that “informatics” canplay that role. If I had been able to find aname for “information technology use,”then I would have proposed that. Butthen again, it may not make much senseto try to unite the disciplines focusing oninformation technology use. As long asthat use is undergoing rapid diversifica-tion, we should perhaps accept a confus-ing variety of partly overlapping ap-proaches, constantly changing and con-stantly changing names.

1. Four Stages of Computer Technology UseIn the discussions preceding the namechange, initiated by Pelle Ehn, one obvi-ous alternative was suggested, but reject-ed. In referring to our discipline in Eng-lish, we have long used the term “infor-mation systems,” and what would have

2

Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 8 [1996], Iss. 2, Art. 3

http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol8/iss2/3

B. Dahlbom 31

been more natural than to choose that asa name?

When the name “information sys-tems” was discarded, this marked an im-portant decision regarding the identity ofour discipline. In order to fully appreci-ate that decision, let us look quickly atthe extraordinary evolution of comput-ers. This evolution has often been de-scribed in generations of hardware orprogramming languages. Technology ismade for use, but strangely enough theuse aspect is normally absent in such ev-olutionary tales. And yet, it is of coursethe evolution of computer technologyuse that is really astonishing. This I hopewill be obvious from a quick look at thefour stages of computer technology usethat we can distinguish so far.

The first computing machines werebuilt during the second world war. Atfirst they were simply thought of as auto-matic versions of the mechanical calcu-lating machines used in offices and retailstores at the time. In a request for fund-ing in 1943 to the Army Ballistics Re-search Laboratory, John Mauchly de-scribed the machine he wanted to build,called ENIAC, Electronic Numerical In-tegrator and Calculator:

…in every sense the electric analogue ofthe mechanical adding, multiplying anddividing machines which are manufac-tured for ordinary arithmetic purposes(quoted from Ceruzzi 1983)

One of the primary objectives was tobuild more efficient calculators to pro-duce mathematical tables, in particularballistic tables for military use. Such ta-bles had been computed by people usingcalculators, but with the rapid develop-ment of weapons during the war, thesehuman “computers,” as they were called

(Ceruzzi 1991), were unable to keep up.Efforts had been made to rationalizecomputing work by organizing it on themodel of the typing pool, but these com-puting pools were now to be replaced bymachine computers that were claimed tobe faster, cheaper and more reliable.

All through the 50s, this original useof computers, as computing machines,continued to dominate. Computers wereautomata that were fed algorithms in or-der to make large computations. To pro-gram the machines meant turning calcu-lation tasks into algorithms that the ma-chines could handle. To become a pro-grammer you had to master the scienceof calculation, numerical analysis.

To begin with, the domain of compu-ter application seemed narrow and ex-clusive: some advanced research andtechnical development, mostly military,some recurrent very special calculationtasks for insurance companies andbanks, and maybe a few other very spe-cial services. During the war, ThomasWatson, Sr., is said to have estimated thefuture world market to “maybe five com-puters.” Similar misjudgments of trulybizarre proportions were made allthrough the 1950s, when estimating theusefulness of the developing computertechnology. The prospects were thatcomputers, interesting and impressive asthey were, would never have more than amarginal impact on life and society.

When, in the early 60s, computersbegan to be used as information systems,it was their capacity to handle large setsof data that became the focus of atten-tion. Computerized information systemswere used by companies and govern-ment agencies to register and keep trackof people, products, payments, taxes,and so on. This second stage of computer

3



B. Dahlbom 32

technology use was made possible by thedevelopment of technology, notably thedevelopment of memory mechanisms.But this development would have meantlittle without the change in use. And thischange did not follow automatically onthe technical development. On the con-trary, it was difficult to foresee and un-derstand. Listen, for example, to HowardAiken, physicist at Harvard, who in col-laboration with IBM had designed theMark computers, speaking as late as1956:

…if it should ever turn out that the basiclogics of a machine designed for thenumerical solution of differential equa-tions coincide with the logics of amachine intended to make bills for adepartment store, I would regard this asthe most amazing coincidence that I haveever encountered (quoted from Ceruzzi1986)

Information systems were introduced inlarge organizations with the ambition toautomate administrative work. At thesame time computers were beginning tobe used to control and monitor produc-tion processes in industry. Thus was bornthe idea of “management informationsystems,” of information systems for ad-ministrative control and monitoring. At-tempts were made, with each new devel-opment of the technology, to turn admin-istrative work into a rational, industrialproduction process. Thus, when personalcomputers were first introduced in largeorganizations, it was under the some-what misleading banner of “office auto-mation.”

Attempts were made all through the70s to introduce home computing, butwhen eventually personal computers re-ally became a commercial success, it wasdue to their use in offices, as spread-

sheets, word processors, and desktoppublishing tools. The 80s became thedecade of the PC and the use of comput-ers again shifted its center of gravity. Nu-merical analysts were happily playingwith super computers and new parallelarchitectures, relational data bases madethe information systems really useful inmanaging complex organizations, andcompanies began complaining about thecomplexity of their information systemsarchitectures, and yet, what everyonetalked about was personal computing.

Interacting with the computing ma-chines of the 50s and with the data ma-chines of the 70s was difficult. The focuson personal computing meant a focus ongraphical interfaces, menus, push but-tons, and direct manipulation. Human-computer interaction became an excitingdomain for designers, and “interface de-sign” became a notion spreading outsidethe computer industry proper.

While the personal computer becameportable and the big operators were grap-pling with the problems of making apocket version, networks and client-server technology were introduced in thelate 80s. And with the networks a devel-opment began that again would changethe focus of information technology use.

It began, innocently enough, with aninterest in cooperative use of applica-tions—HCI turned into CSCW—butsoon turned into a major effort to use net-work technology to combine the data-bases of the 70s with the word process-ing and calculations of the 80s. In thisway we got a technology making it pos-sible to distribute, sort, and cooperatewith, all the documents and spreadsheetsproduced on the PCs. Again, there was apromise of turning office work into justanother production process, and man-

4



B. Dahlbom 33

agement consultants got down to busi-ness, gauging customer value, measuringworkflows, redesigning and automatingwork.

If things had stopped there, with in-ternal client-server networks, documentmanagement, process engineering, andcustomer orientation, the networkswould have remained a major businessinnovation, changing office work, butthat is all. It was when network thinkingwas combined with a political and mediaattention to Internet that interest in infor-mation technology really “exploded.”Computer technology became a mediumof communication, not only for officework, but for entertainment, education,news, marketing, and so on. Specula-tions began about a future, interactive,synthesis of television, telephones, andcomputers in a global communicationmedium, a world of information in whichpeople would work and live. In the waypeople once moved from the country tothe cities, they would move again, to theNet.

This most recent use of computershas again moved the focus of our atten-tion, and introduced a whole new way ofspeaking about the technology: informa-tion technology (IT), Internet, infrastruc-tures, infobahns, interactive video, mul-timedia, cyberspace, networks.

With the current use of computers,the technology has really become perva-sive. It has moved from the workshops ofcomputing in the 50s, to the accountingoffices of management in the 70s, to theoffices, universities and advertisingagencies of the 80s, to the world of me-dia, entertainment and general educationof the 90s.

Through all of these stages of radical-ly changing use, certain things have re-

mained constant. One is the stability ofthe fundamental technology. Computertechnology is still processor and memo-ry, and even if parallel architectures havebeen added to von Neumann’s originaldesign, that design still holds as a gooddescription of the computer.

Another thing that has remained con-stant is the utter surprise which hasmarked each of the transitions. I havegiven one example of this already. Otherexamples are easy to find. When micro-computers were first introduced on themarket by California enthusiasts in the70s, it was for the use of programming,to learn “digital thinking,” as they said(Pfaffenberger 1988). Later we were ex-pected to build information systems (forrecipes, home economy, stamp collec-tions, and so on) on our home computers.As late as 1980, Swedish experts advisedthe government not to buy personal com-puters, “because there is no future in thattechnology.” Ask your colleagues howmany of them were prepared for the In-ternet revolution.

2. Technology Use If we look at these four stages of compu-ter technology use, it is easy to see thatour discipline was born in, and for a longtime defined by, the second stage. Whenpersonal computing and human-compu-ter interaction was all the rage in themid-1980s, we stuck to our methods fordeveloping mainframe based informa-tion systems. We went on thinking andtalking about our discipline in terms ofdevelopment of information systems inorganizations, extending the notion ofinformation system to cover other formsof computer technology use, such as

5



B. Dahlbom 34

word processing, desktop publishing,and communication. To exemplify, listento Nijssen & Halpin (1989) in their“modern introduction to informationsystems,” defining their fundamentalconcept:

“Basically, information systems are usedto maintain, and answer queries about, astore of information. Although suchtasks can be performed manually, weconfine our attention to computerizedinformation systems. Most current infor-mation systems are called database sys-tems. The data base itself is thecollection of facts (data) stored by thesystem. The system is used to definewhat kinds of data are permitted, tosupervise the addition, deletion and mod-ification of data, and to answer questionsabout the data.

What is ironic is that when the authors inthe short introduction where this defini-tion is given (indeed even on the verysame, first, page) want to stress the im-portance of their book, they refer to theimportance of word processing and com-puterized typesetting—which accordingto their definition are not informationsystems!

The decision in Sweden, therefore,not to call our discipline “informationsystems,” but “informatics” is importantfor the way in which it marks the end ofa commitment to second stage computertechnology use. If we missed the person-al computing stage, we will make sure tobe the avant garde of the Internet era. Inthe 90s we have rather quickly begun todirect our attention to information tech-nology, to networks, Internet, and multi-media. Rather than going on about “de-veloping information systems” we arebeginning to speak of our discipline in

terms of “using information technolo-gy.”

We may very well wonder what thisshift in terminology will mean, exceptfor the fact that it expresses our interestin contributing to the fourth-stage use ofcomputer technology. The notion of “in-formation system,” as it was defined byBörje Langefors in the 1960s (cf. Lange-fors 1995), was a social concept includ-ing the organization using the data sys-tem, interpreting its data, turning theminto information. This is a difficult no-tion to work with and, in practice, itproved difficult to avoid speaking as ifthe information system was identicalwith the underlying data processing sys-tem. Be that as it may, Langefors gavethe Scandinavian approach to informa-tion systems a clear understanding of theimportance of the user and a social per-spective:

This Infological approach was based onthe observation that the users shouldhave real control of the system designand that this could be made possible byexploiting the fact that the main systemdesign is an organizational design andthat the needs analysis can be free fromtechnological aspects and language. Anew kind of analysts/designers, the Info-logical systemeers, was introduced. Theyhave an organizational, human orienta-tion, not a machine orientation.” (quotedfrom my introduction to Langefors 1995)

Some may very well wonder if, when ex-changing “information system” for “in-formation technology,” we will lose thesocial perspective stressed by Langefors.Will we become more technology orient-ed, less interested in human aspects ofcomputer technology use?

When our discipline was founded inthe 1960s it was motivated by the use of

6



B. Dahlbom 35

information technology as data process-ing systems in administration. Such sys-tems were developed in projects, and thediscipline educated the practitioners inthose projects and did research on the na-ture of, and methods used, in suchprojects. Since then the use of informa-tion technology has diversified, and ourdiscipline has (belatedly) followed suit,now encompassing a rich variety offorms of information technology use:personal computing, communication,electronic publishing, air traffic control,road transport informatics, intelligenthouses, and so on. The focus has shiftedfrom information systems to informationtechnology, and from systems develop-ment to technology use. Looking backnow, both of these changes seem verynatural. Again, we can use Börje Lange-fors, the founder of our discipline inSweden, as an example to explain whythis is so.

Langefors’s interest in data process-ing systems was motivated by a moregeneral interest in the use of informationtechnology, and his notion of “informa-tion system” was meant to support sucha general interest (Langefors 1995, chap.1). Over the years, information systemswere to become—in theory if not in prac-tice—more narrowly understood as data-base systems, and other uses of informa-tion technology were neglected (seeDahlbom 1992). With his notion “infor-mation system” Langefors wanted to di-rect our attention away from the dataprocessing system towards the use ofthat system in the organization. Andeven if, over the years, the practice inScandinavia came to be more and morefocused on the systems developmentproject, the academic discipline keptspending its main energy on understand-

ing the users and their way of using thetechnology. Thus, when we now say thatwe are less interested in information sys-tems and systems development, than ininformation technology and its use, weare really much less radical than it mayfirst seem, expressing as we do a goodold Langeforsian view of the discipline.

3. People and TechnologyThe computing machines were inventedat a time when the profession of humancomputers was rapidly growing. Thecomputers soon made human computersobsolete. Certainly, to this very day,much computing is being done by peo-ple, but there is nothing like the massive,organized computing that we would haveseen were it not for computing machines.And, of course, were it not for computingmachines, we would not have the scaleof computing that we have today. Thinkonly of how many human computers wewould need to perform the computing ofcontemporary banking! And with onlyhuman computers we would have noth-ing like the international financial mar-ket, with all its turbulence, that we havetoday.

So, even if we count only the veryfirst computer technology use, the use ofcomputers as computing machines, wecan truthfully say that computers havehad an enormous impact on modern soci-ety. And, if we go on to consider the useof computers as information systems, forword processing and desktop publishing,and for communication, it is obvious thatcomputer technology has radicallychanged the world we live in, the arti-facts of daily use, the activities we en-gage in, the ways we do work and find

7



B. Dahlbom 36

pleasure, the ways we interact and findisolation. And yet, this way of thinkingof technology—as a form of life (Winner1986), as an artificial world shaping ourlives—is not the way people tend tothink of technology.

No, technology is often conceived asa cause of effects, be it economic growthand strategic advantages or exploitationand deskilling, and not as an artificialworld, a form of life. Social scientistsstudy the effects of technology andleaves the technology itself to engineer-ing to deal with. But when technology isseen to be a part of society, rather than aforce affecting society from the outside,then technology becomes more interest-ing in itself, as a social phenomenon.

Our understanding (or misunder-standing) of computer technology willoften emphasize one type of technologyor technology use. Let me give four ex-amples: technology as tool, system, me-dium, or interface.

First, technology can be identifiedwith tools, instruments, small machines,things that facilitate work (calculatorsand hair dryers) or entertain (videogames and CD-players). When techno-logical development is thought of as thedevelopment of such tools, it is a fairlyuncomplicated process. Developmentsimply means more and, hopefully, bet-ter tools, instruments, gadgets. Life willgo on in pretty much the same way as be-fore, only it will be more comfortableand more fun. Now and then we will beworried by how all these gadgets drawour attention away from more importantthings in life—how they make us super-ficial, passive, materialistic, and so on—but those worries will come and go.Gadgets make us think of technology astools and support, and even if these

gadgets can divert our attention frometernal values, their influence on ourlives seems marginal and mostly harm-less.

Secondly, a more complex type oftechnology can be found in the largescale industrial production systems, thefactories, that play such an importantrole in industrial societies. These pro-duction systems are constructed to runcomplex machines, and they are them-selves such machines. Industrial work isdominated by machine technology, andthe central role played by work in mod-ern society gives this technology a dom-inating role in modern life. But its domi-nance extends well beyond the life of in-dustrial workers. Machine technology,factories, serve as models for all kinds oforganized activity in modern society. Of-fices, schools, hospitals, and so on, areall factories. Factories force upon us theimage of technology as a system whichcontrols us, a machine in which we areminor parts to be replaced when mal-functioning. Machines are big and com-plex, and technological developmentmakes them bigger and more complex,increasing their power over our lives.

A modern industrialized society de-pends on large scale transport and com-munication infrastructures: road sys-tems, electric networks, water and gas,sewage, telephone, Internet. This sort oftechnology can be thought of as the skel-eton, nervous system and blood systemof the social animal. If this is what youthink of when you hear the word “tech-nology,” then technological develop-ment will be viewed as a complex andpervasive social change process. Suchinfrastructural technology makes possi-ble (regulates) our behavior, customs, in-teraction patterns, our time. Water pipes,

8



B. Dahlbom 37

electricity, roads, telephones, mass me-dia, provide a framework for our use oftime, structuring our day.

Infrastructures, network technology,can be thought of as systems, along theline of factories, and viewed as workingin close conjunction with the industrialproduction systems of modern society.But we can also think of (some of) thosenetworks as a third variety of technolo-gy, as media connecting people, makingpossible interaction and cooperation.Media differ from systems in not forcingthemselves upon us. They resemble toolsin the way they are there for us to use atour own leisure and for our own purpose.When we think of roads as a system wefocus on traffic jams on our way to work.When we think of those same roads as amedium we focus instead on the freedomthey give us to go anywhere and see allkinds of people. What is a system to aproducer or operator, is often a mediumto the user—at least when it is function-ing well. The more pervasive media be-come, when society becomes a “mediasociety,” then media turn into systems.

Typically, we hold the tools in ourhands, so they are obviously obtrusive.And yet they tend to withdraw into thebackground as we use them. Factoriesand media are even more in the back-ground, as we attend to tools, tasks, andpeople. What we focus upon is the sur-face of things, the interface of our social,cultural and natural environment, ratherthan the mechanisms behind the surface.But that surface is becoming more andmore technical. When we think of tech-nology as interface, we introduce afourth variety of technology, one that hasits place in the foreground. And, wherev-er we turn, there is technology. The foodwe eat, the water we drink, the ground

we walk on—everything is artificial,produced, modified by people. To thinkof technological development as devel-opment of the interface obviously raisesthe question “How would you like theworld to be?” That question has no sim-ple answer.

Computers invite us to think of themin all these four different ways. We caneven use these varieties of technology totell the story of computer technology de-velopment from the perspective of itsuse. The computer systems and manage-ment information systems of the 60s and70s were systems for control of machinesand organizations respectively. The per-sonal computers of the 80s, with theirword processing, spreadsheets, anddesktop publishing software, were tools.Personal computing also made the inter-face a focus of attention, and made peo-ple dream of a world covered with com-puter displays—giving it a benign andinformative interface. The networks ofthe 90s are media, and the informationsociety of the 70s, that became a designsociety in the 80s, is now turning into acommunication and media society.

Our discipline has always defended apeople perspective. Sometimes this hasbeen combined with a rather superficialview of the relations between people andtechnology, and sometimes it has evenmeant a negative attitude to technology.Mustering support from the social sci-ences and humanities in our battles withnarrow minded computer engineers,some of us have acquired bedfellowswho know nothing at all about technolo-gy. But since there is no doubt that tech-nology still is the most important socialforce in our modern society, it is of theutmost importance that we take technol-ogy seriously and develop an under-

9



B. Dahlbom 38

standing of its changing and complexroles in human affairs. Such an under-standing cannot be based on an outdatedand simplified dichotomy like the onebetween people and technology.

The distinction between people andtechnology is one of a whole family ofsimilar dichotomies, such as organism–environment, inherited–acquired, mind–body, individual–society, which all seemto take for granted that a complex do-main of interactions can be neatly divid-ed into two separate areas. To begin tounderstand the role of technology inshaping society, we may have to changethe way we think and talk of technology.We speak of using technology, of howtechnology can be used to control peopleor support a work organization. Wespeak of using computers and of human-computer interaction. We debate whethertechnology determines society or theother way around, choosing betweentechnological determinism and socialconstructivism. In all this talk, we pre-suppose an apparently innocuous dis-tinction between technology and people,between technology and society.

The dichotomy between technologyand people (society) has shaped our aca-demic and educational systems and de-fined professional identities. (Dahlbom& Mathiassen 1997). To become an engi-neer you learn about machines. If you areinterested in people you study psycholo-gy or sociology. Decision makers in themodern industrialized world are eitherengineers, with no social or psychologi-cal education, or they are economists orlawyers who know nothing about tech-nology. The dichotomy is often used as asupport for humanism, in a romantic at-tempt to define our essence by dissocia-tion from technology: human beings are

alive and spiritual while technology isdead and material; like the rest of the ma-terial world, technology is external topeople and society.

And yet it does not take much exam-ination to see how inadequate this di-chotomy is, how it expresses a misunder-standing of both people and technology.Simply put, people and technology arenot distinct but intertwined, but the di-chotomy is so entrenched in our lan-guage that it is difficult to even formulatea more reasonable alternative. As soon aswe want to speak of the relations be-tween people and technology, our lan-guage forces this dichotomy upon us:people and technology, people usingtechnology, the consequences of tech-nology on society, society shaping tech-nology.

When people use manual tools orwork with machines in factories, this di-chotomy seems obvious: there are peo-ple and there are tools (machines), andthey are obviously distinct. But as soonas we begin to see that technology comesin many different forms and guises—assystems, networks, media, shaping ourworld and the very conditions of our eve-ryday existence, and shaping us—we seehow misleading the dichotomy is.

In the modern world, technology hasbecome so much more than a value neu-tral tool; technology has become an ex-pression of our interests, an implementa-tion of our values, an extension of ourselves, a form for our lives. What used tobe tools and machines that we could keepat arms length, has crept up on us, turn-ing into something with which we con-stantly interact. People and technologyhave become intertwined. You cannotunderstand the one without understand-ing the other.

10



B. Dahlbom 39

4. TheoryHere in Scandinavia, our discipline grewout of the practice of developing infor-mation systems. To begin with, much re-search was itself an example of the prac-tice: Research projects were systems de-velopment projects in which you hadmore time and freedom to learn and inwhich the pressure was to produce scien-tific reports rather than functioning sys-tems. (An influential alternative was for-mulated by Kristen Nygaard in his actionoriented research approach. See Nygaard(1992) for a retrospective review.) Youused the practice to learn about the prac-tice. The aim of research was defined ac-cordingly: to contribute to the improve-ment of practice. Typically, that contri-bution would be in the form of a method,methodology, or guidelines for some as-pect of the complex business of systemsdevelopment.

More theoretical research was orient-ed towards explicating the central notionof information system, with BörjeLangefors (1966, 1995) as a major con-tributor. In order to improve the practiceof systems development, to make bettersystems, it was necessary to understandthe nature of the systems we were devel-oping. Langefors’s idea, to define an in-formation system as a sociotechnicalrather than a technical system, to distin-guish between information processingand data processing, played an importantrole when defining the discipline.

Now, that information systems areonly one among many varieties of com-puter technology use, it becomes impor-tant to develop a conceptual scheme forcategorizing those varieties. Just as weonce developed conceptual frameworksfor analyzing and designing information

processing in organizations, so we mustnow formulate conceptual schemas for avariety of human conduct involving theuse of computer technology. Here wewill, of course, be able to rely on theoriesand concepts from the social sciences,but too often we will find that our partic-ular approach requires novel conceptual-izations. Just like engineering for so longhas managed to conceptualize technolo-gy without taking into consideration itsuse, so the social sciences have had a ten-dency to describe human conduct as if itwent on without the aid of technical arti-facts.

I will only give a few examples fromthe research we do in, and around, the In-ternet project (http//:internet.adb.gu.se)to exemplify what I mean by theory. PålSørgaard and Lars Bo Eriksen (Sørgaard,forthcoming, Eriksen & Sørgaard 1996)use the dialectical theory of Dahlbom &Mathiassen (1993) with its three ap-proaches to systems development—con-struction, evolution, and intervention—to distinguish three approaches to Webimplementation: technology oriented,tradition oriented, and change oriented.With this theory, they can give an illumi-nating analysis of different ways of im-plementing Web publishing, as well asdiscuss possible trends and strategies forchange.

Ole Hanseth and Eric Monteiro(Hanseth 1996) use the Latour-Callon-Law actor-network theory to analyzecurrent information infrastructure devel-opment and use practices, proposing de-sign and development process alterna-tives based on this theory. Actor-networktheory is one of the key theories devel-oped within the field of science and tech-nology studies (STS). The essential ele-ment of the theory is the way it links

11



B. Dahlbom 40

technological and non-technological ele-ments as equals into networks (Latour1991). This feature makes the theorypowerful as a tool for studying techno-logical and non-technological “systems”together as a unified whole, with partic-ular attention to the interdependenciesand interactions of technological andnon-technological elements.

There has been much talk about the“information explosion” creating an in-formation overload, putting a strain onour cognitive capacities, but few at-tempts have been made to describe thephenomenon of overload in more depth.Focusing on the increasing use of infor-mation technology for communicationrather than information retrieval andprocessing, Fredrik Ljungberg andCarsten Sørensen (Ljungberg 1996,Ljungberg & Sørensen 1996) are devel-oping a theory of communication over-flow, identifying dimensions and mecha-nisms involved in increasing and han-dling overflow. While information over-load focuses on the wealth ofinformation in mass media and databas-es, communication overflow concernsthe wealth and obtrusive nature of com-municative interaction.

Together with Michael Mandahl Ihave developed a general conceptualschema for categorizing informationtechnology use, in terms of four dimen-sions: infrastructure, organization, activ-ities, and mission (Dahlbom & Mandahl1994). There are of course numerousways in which such schemas can be puttogether, but this one has the advantageof being based on Aristotle’s analysis ofchange. It can be used to understand howcompanies by acquiring a certain tech-nology inadvertently may commit them-selves to a certain way of organizing.

When analyzing change, Aristotle re-lied on four explanatory principles, usu-ally called “causes.” These are, the mate-rial cause, “that out of which a thingcomes to be,” the formal cause, “theform or the archetype, i.e. the definitionof the essence,” the efficient cause, “theprimary source of the change,” and thefinal cause, “the end or that for the sakeof which a thing is done.” We can usethese four principles to analyze modernorganizations.

Material cause refers to the materialfrom which an organization is made. Itcomprises whatever you must have whenyou start out, that which is common toorganizations of this kind, the answer toyour question: “What do I need to makean organization?” The material is the or-ganization’s infrastructure, and thatstructure includes capital, technology,personnel, with their basic education andcompetence, buildings and, indirectly,systems of transport, finance, laws, mar-kets, etc. in society at large, making or-ganizations possible.

The formal cause refers to the organ-ization as such, the way the business ismanaged. In the scientific study of mod-ern organizations, in organization theory,it is this formal aspect that has generallybeen in the foreground while the materi-al, the efficient, and the final causes haveonly marginally been dealt with. Thus,standard definitions of organization inmodern organization theory follow MaxWeber in treating the division and coor-dination of labor as the two fundamentalaspects of organizations. Such defini-tions suffer from “idealism,” Marxwould say, in his own theory stressingthe material basis, the productive forces,explaining organizational change interms of conflicts between matter and

12



B. Dahlbom 41

form, between productive forces and re-lations of production. That Marx is moreof an Aristotelian than modern organiza-tion theory, does not prevent him fromneglecting the other two causes in Aris-totle’s schema, however.

The efficient cause is the daily activ-ity performed by the members of the or-ganization. Nothing will happen just bybringing together and organizing a bunchof competent people, supplying themwith tools and material, unless they getdown to work. The modern way of doingthings is by organization (management),and organization is a powerful cause, butit needs the tacit support of activity (bypeople or machines). When you have or-ganized your work day, you still have toget the work done.

The final cause is that for which allthe work is being done, the ultimate goalor the “mission” of the organization. Ifthe organization is perfectly rational eve-rything going on in it should contributeto its goal or purpose. It is unusual thatorganizations have a clear conception oftheir goals. The final cause is a topic ofongoing investigation and elaborationrather than something explicitly formu-lated and uncontroversial.

Our discipline has been dominatedby systems thinking and in spite of anumber of “humanistic,” “organic,” and“soft” alternatives, systems have nor-mally (at least tacitly) been understoodas stable mechanisms. Once you havebegun thinking about an organization asa system it becomes very difficult to seeit as a process. To systems thinking,change is always understood as takingplace against a stable background: it is achange in the system. And it does not re-ally matter how much one stresses thatsystems are always enclosed in larger

systems or that they are “open,” whenthe whole idea of systems thinking is toview an entity in isolation, to avoid hav-ing to consider a complex context.

Aristotle’s alternative to systemsthinking encompasses systems (formalcause) with their goals (final cause), butby adding the infrastructure (materialcause) which in a complex world knowsno boundaries, and business activities(efficient cause), his process thinkingavoids getting trapped in an isolated, un-changing system. In contrast to systemsthinking an Aristotelian theory of organ-izations may very well regard infrastruc-ture and activities as more stable than or-ganization and goals. We go on perform-ing the same activities with a differentorganization and for a different reason.

Systems thinking has encouraged amanagement perspective on organiza-tions and their use of computer technolo-gy. It has neglected three of the dimen-sions that we have used Aristotle’s theo-ry of change to distinguish. We can usethis theory to criticize systems thinkingand advocate a more complex view of or-ganizations. To stress the importance ofactivities and infrastructure over goalsand organization will mean to argue infavor of networked organizations.

These are only a few examples ofwhat I mean by theory. The term “theo-ry” is used in many ways in the sciencesand in the philosophies of science. As Iunderstand it, the notion of “theory” isreally a romantic notion (Dahlbom &Mathiassen 1993), stressing the impor-tance of going beyond the observablephenomena to deeper, hidden layers ofreality, in order to define concepts andidentify general laws, in terms of whichthe chaotic flux of observable facts canbe systematized and explained. Often the

13



B. Dahlbom 42

term is “deromanticized” to mean, sim-ply, an alternative conceptual schema tothe one used by common sense, but theambition remains the same, namely tobring order and sense to a complexworld. To develop theory, then, means tointroduce new concepts, dichotomies,taxonomies. You cannot introduce newconcepts, of course, without at the sametime introducing general laws, conceptu-al truths, of a sort, with which you definethose concepts and relate them to eachother and to concepts already available.

5. DesignWhen we say that the subject matter ofinformatics is information technologyuse, we immediately have to add that thisinterest is design oriented. We are inter-ested in the use of technology becausewe are interested in changing and im-proving that use. Informatics is an artifi-cial science (Dahlbom 1993). Unlike thenatural sciences with their explicit inter-est in nature, the subject matter of infor-matics is the world we live in, the worldof artifacts, an artificial world. Unlikethe humanities with its interest in under-standing the past, informatics is interest-ed in designing the future. And, unlikethe social sciences that rarely dare comeclose to technology, informatics is notafraid of getting its hands dirty withscripts and protocols, since they are inte-gral elements in the complex combine ofinformation technology use.

Traditional science seeks knowledgeof a given world. In scientific researchwe “discover” what the world is like. Ifyou are more interested in “inventing”the world, then you’ll have to do so out-side science. This means that if you are

interested in the world we live in, theworld of artifacts, then in order to be“scientific” you must refrain from inves-tigating possibilities for change and im-provements. If the traditional view ofscience is permitted to rule, as it so oftenis in the social sciences with their ambi-tion to be scientifically respectable, thenthe motivation for doing social science inthe first place—making a contribution tothe realization of a good society—mustbe disguised in order to be admitted.

When Simon first introduced the no-tion of “a science of artificial phenome-na,” he lamented the fact that the profes-sional schools, seeking scientific status,had turned their back on design:

In view of the key role of design in pro-fessional activity, it is ironic that in thiscentury the natural sciences have almostdriven the sciences of the artificial fromprofessional school curricula. Engineer-ing schools have become schools ofphysics and mathematics; medicalschools have become schools of biologi-cal science; business schools havebecome schools of finite mathemat-ics...Few doctoral dissertations in first-rate professional schools today deal withgenuine design problems, as distin-guished from problems in solid-statephysics or stochastic processes. (Simon(1969, p. 56)

Whatever we do with our discipline—and there will be many changes— weshould make sure to protect our designinterest. We have a lot to learn from otherdisciplines, and we have a lot to gainfrom close cooperation with researchersin disciplines like computer science, psy-chology, linguistics, and sociology, butwe should make sure not to learn somuch from them that we lose our designorientation with an interest in the contin-

14



B. Dahlbom 43

gent and exceptional more than in thegeneral, in local design principles morethan in general laws, in patents morethan in publications, in heuristics and in-novations more than in methods andproofs, in the good and beautiful morethan in the true.

With information technology we arerapidly transforming our society, our or-ganizations, our work, and our lives. Allthese changes go together. You cannotunderstand one of them without havingat least a notion of the big picture. Whenwe try to see the role played by informa-tion technology in these changes, whenwe try to design good uses of informa-tion technology, we resemble archeolo-gists trying to reconstruct an ancient cul-ture in terms of a few technical artifactsleft behind. Our interest, of course, is dif-ferent. We are interested not in describ-ing some definite, actual culture of thepast, but in evaluating and choosing be-tween the possible future cultures thatcould be built on the type of technologywe are now busy developing (Dahlbomforthcoming, Dahlbom & Janlert forth-coming).

People and their lives are themselvesartifacts, constructed, and the major ma-terial in that construction is technology.When we say we study artifacts, it is notcomputers or computer systems wemean, but information technology use,conceived as a complex and changingcombine of people and technology. Tothink of this combine as an artifactmeans to approach it with a design atti-tude, asking questions like: This could bedifferent? What is wrong with it? Howcould it be improved?

Since information technology use isour business, and that use is rapidly de-veloping and diversifying, we have to

develop and diversify too. We want tocontribute to that process rather than justobserve and describe it. We are interest-ed in new ideas rather than in statisticallysecured minutiae, in intervention ratherthan description. There is a need forcareful, pedestrian collection of facts inour field, certainly, but too often such re-search turns into an “anthropology of thepast” rather than an experimental “arche-ology of the future” which is our interest.

Working with a rapidly developingtechnology, one always runs the risk ofprotecting the past rather than contribut-ing to the future. This is true whether youdo research, teach, consult or developsoftware. Thus, we protected the main-frames against the invasion of personalcomputers, and so today many of us arebuilding fire walls to protect our organi-zations against Internet technologies.Such protective tendencies should bequestioned, however difficult it may beto accept the fact that yesterday’s exper-tise has become a liability rather than anasset. It may not be true generally thattechnology will solve the problems itcreates, if only it continues to develop,but it certainly is true of computing. Inthe land of computers you will not findsecurity by holding on to the past, but bythrowing yourself over the edge of thefuture.

6. A New CurriculumAs long as it is systems development thatis our topic, we know how to educate ourstudents. But how do you educate themwhen the focus has shifted towards infor-mation technology use? What are theysupposed to be doing out there, whenthey are no longer developing systems?

15



B. Dahlbom 44

Part of the answer is simple. As compu-ter technology moves on through itsstages of use, it does not shed its oldstages, but they are accumulated to de-fine an increasingly rich and diversifiedarea of use. The different stages withtheir different uses together constitute ageneral framework for informatics, with-in which any curriculum will have toseek its particular area of concentration.

To turn computers into powerfulcomputing machines you need to knownumerical methods and algorithms; todevelop information systems you mustmaster business modelling, systems de-sign, and project organization; personalcomputing requires psychological theo-ries of human-computer interaction,skills in interface design, and how to dousability studies; and to support net-working you must understand humancommunication and cooperation, net-work technology and multimedia pro-duction, and the role of cyberspace as anew arena for human enterprise.

It is interesting to see how these fourstages have taken informatics through atour of the traditional university, cross-ing and recrossing faculty boundaries.Starting out in numerical analysis, wequickly moved into business administra-tion, hesitated to take the step into cogni-tive science, and are now being courtedby sociologists and ethnographers.Through all these moves, we have had afoot in technology, of course, but de-pending on what stage you choose tostress in your particular curriculum, youwill have very different companions.Your choice of collaborators will also bedetermined by what particular area ofuse it is that you emphasize, of course:business, education, media, traffic, so-cial service, health care, and so on.

Underlying these four areas of com-petence are two more general knowledgefields, the contents of which certainlywill change with the evolution of use, butyet retain their respective identities. I amthinking of theory and technology. To-gether they make up the general compe-tence of information technology use.

Theory is the field of what computerscan do, the roles they play, and couldplay, in human affairs. This is where youlearn about the stages of use, and thushopefully acquire an open attitude to,and curiosity about, the future use of thetechnology. This is where you learn fun-damental concepts like “information sys-tem,” “infrastructure,” “communicationoverflow,” and the like. You study gener-al theory, but you also learn about whatyou can do with currently available soft-ware.

Technology is a rich subject matterencompassing both knowledge of what acomputer is, and how to program, funda-mental concepts of computing as well asdetails about different programming lan-guages and tools. Technology also in-cludes knowledge about the state of theart in hardware and software, what isavailable on the market, and how to tech-nically test and evaluate hardware andsoftware. Technology is the place wherewe meet our colleagues in the otherbranches of informatics, and the dividinglines will, hopefully, never be clear ordistinct.

Developing information systems foradministrative use is different from de-veloping software for missile control,but software development and softwareengineering still have a lot to learn fromeach other. Generating workflow appli-cations for a customer organization isdifferent from writing micro code for

16



B. Dahlbom 45

mass market application generators, andyet workflow consultants and program-mers ought to be able to speak to eachother. Designing web pages is differentfrom configuring a Unix server, and yetit doesn’t hurt to know a bit of what bothof these tasks involve. In informatics, weeducate systems developers, workflowconsultants and web page designers,rather than software engineers, softwarehouse programmers and computer engi-neers, but as technology and use devel-ops, the line is constantly being crossedand moving. In our research and educa-tion in informatics we focus on use, butwith a design orientation, and it is tech-nology that is our number one instrumentof change.

Informatics differs from computerscience generally by defining its subjectmatter, information technology, as a so-cial phenomenon. Another way to organ-ize our curriculum could begin by distin-guishing important aspects of technolo-gy as a social phenomenon. One sugges-tion, then, and I owe this to a discussionwith Lars Mathiassen, would define ageneral introduction to information tech-nology as comprised of four subjects: de-velopment, use, management, and tech-nology. Such an introduction might beoffered as something of a core curricu-lum for information society, but it canalso constitute a general framework fordistinguishing different specialitieswithin the general informatics area.Computer engineers become experts onthe technology and how to develop it, butthey know very little of its managementand use. At business schools they con-centrate on how to manage the technolo-gy, learning very little about the technol-ogy itself and its development. In thenew informatics, our focus of attention is

on the use of information technology, butinformatics is a broader discipline, lessspecialized than the others, even if itsorientation may differ from place toplace. With a creative understanding ofthe potentials of information technologyuse as our basis, we can either specializein improving use, developing technolo-gy, or managing technology.

Yet another way to organize our cur-riculum could be to use the kind of tax-onomies of technology use introducedabove. We could teach our students therole of information technology as infra-structure, how it is used to support differ-ent activities, how it can be used for co-ordination, communication and control,and, finally, its role in developing, defin-ing, realizing, controlling, and evaluat-ing organizational goals. Such a curricu-lum would not have to be all that differ-ent from one organized by the develop-ment, use, and management of techno-logy. An interest in technology and itsdevelopment can be described as an in-terest in infrastructure, while an interestin use takes an interest in what the usersactually do, in activities. An interest inmanagement is an interest in organiza-tion and mission.

Informatics, as I understand it, is adiscipline tracking (leading) the devel-opment of information technology, withthe ambition to put that technology togood use, acting both on the technologyand on the organization of its use. It hasnot always been easy to change the cur-riculum to meet the demands of newforms of technology use. Tracking (notto say “leading”) a technology goingthrough swift and surprising changes inuse puts a strain on educators and educa-tional programs. Information systemsdevelopers were taught numerical meth-

17



B. Dahlbom 46

ods well into the 70s, interface designerswere taught JSP in the late 80s, and in-tranet developers are still being broughtup on relational database design. Suchconservatism of the curriculum is unfor-tunate, I believe, in the way it supportsthe conservatism of big, bureaucraticbusiness in a time when companieswould do well to adjust more quickly tothe demands of a postindustrial servicesociety. But such conservatism is muchworse when it characterizes not only thecurriculum but the whole discipline,keeping it stuck in the information sys-tems ruts of the second stage of informa-tion technology use.

AcknowledgmentI am grateful to the anonymous review-ers for extensive and useful comments. Aprevious version was presented at IRIS19, and published in the proceedings,Gothenburg Studies in Informatics, Re-port 8, 1996. Department of Informatics,Göteborg University.

ReferencesCeruzzi, P. E., (1983). Reckoners. The Pre-

history of the Digital Computer, 1935-1945. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Ceruzzi, P. E., (1986). An Unforeseen Revo-lution: Computers and Expectations,1935–1985. In J. J. Corn (ed.). ImaginingTomorrow. History, Technology, and theAmerican Future. Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press.

Ceruzzi, P. E., (1991). When ComputersWere Human. Annals of the History ofComputing, 13:237-244.

Dahlbom, B., (1992). Systems Developmentas a Research Discipline. In K. Ivanov

(ed.). Proceedings of the 14th IRIS. Insti-tute of Information Processing, UmeåUniversity 1992.

Dahlbom, B., (1993). En vetenskap om arte-fakter. VEST: Tidskrift för vetenskapsstud-ier, 6(4).

Dahlbom, B., (forthcoming). Going to theFuture. In J. Berleur et al. (eds). Proceed-ings of the IFIP-WG9.2/9.5 Corfu Confer-ence on “Culture and Democracy Revis-ited in the Global Information Society.

Dahlbom, B. & Janlert, L.-E., (forthcoming).Computer Future.

Dahlbom, B. & Mandahl, M., (1994). A The-ory of Information Technology Use. In P.Kerola et al. (eds). Precedings of the 17thInformation Systems Research Seminar inScandinavia. University of Oulu, Depart-ment of Information Processing.

Dahlbom, B. & Mathiassen, L., (1993). Com-puters in Context. The Philosophy andPractice of Systems Design. Oxford:Blackwell.

Dahlbom, B. & Mathiassen, L., (1997). TheFuture of Our Profession. The Communi-cations of the ACM, 40(6), June.

Eriksen, L. B. & Sørgaard, P., (1996). Organ-isational Implementation of WWW inScandinavian Newspapers: TraditionalApproaches Dominate. In Dahlbom, B. etal (eds). Proceedings of IRIS 19. Gothen-burg Studies in Informatics, Report 8.Göteborg.

Langefors, B., (1966). Theoretical Analysisof Information Systems. Lund: Studentlit-teratur.

Langefors, B., (1995). Essays on Infology.Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Latour, B., (1991). Technology is SocietyMade Durable. In J. Law (ed.). A Sociol-ogy of Monsters. London: Routledge.

Ljungberg, F., (1996). An Initial Explorationof Communication Overflow. In Proceed-ings of the 2nd International Conferenceon the Design of Cooperative Systems(COOP'96), Sophia Antipolis, France,edited by the COOP group, INRIA,France.

18



B. Dahlbom 47

Ljungberg, F. & Sørensen, C., (1996). Com-munication Deficiency and SwitchingMechanisms. In J. D. Coelho et al. (eds).Proceedings of the 4th European Confer-ence on Information Systems (ECIS'96),Lisbon, Portugal, Ficha Técnica, vol. 2,pp. 1113-1119.

Hanseth, O., (1996). Information Technologyas Infrastructure. Gothenburg Studies inInformatics, Report 10, 1996. Departmentof Informatics, Göteborg University.

Nijssen, G. M. & Halping, T. A., (1988). Con-ceptual Schema and Relational DatabaseDesign. Prentice-Hall.

Nygaard, K., (1992). How Many Choices DoWe Make? How Many Are Difficult? In C.Floyd et al. (eds). Software Developmentand Reality Construction. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.

Pfaffenberger, B., (1988). The Social Mean-ing of the Personal Computer: Or, Whythe Personal Computer Revolution WasNo Revolution. Anthropological Quar-terly, 61(1).

Simon, H. A., (1969). The Sciences of theArtificial. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress. A second, extended, edition waspublished in 1981.

Sørgaard, P., (forthcoming). Work Behind theService: Web Publishing and Changes inDocument Production.

Winner, L., (1986). Technology as a Form ofLife. In The Whale and the Reactor. Chi-cago: The University of Chicago Press.

19



B. Dahlbom 48

20

