The Social Life of Information

Rating:
Summary: A View of IT from a Social Context
Review: I enjoyed reading this thoughtful book, which evaluates and analyzes the role of technology in a balanced social context. I learned to appreciate a different perspective - a perspective where information technologies are placed in a balanced contextual relationship to social values, and to human needs and relationships. Other books I have read survey technology from the standpoint of technological determinism, or as the book says, from the standpoint of the "blinkered euphoria of the infoenthusiast." This book is a good reading and it seeds deeper discussion and thought.

Since I work in the field of distance learning, I found Chapter 5, "Learning - in Theory and in Practice," Chapter 6, "Innovating Organization, Husbanding Knowledge," Chapter 7 - "Reading the Background," and Chapter 8, "Re-education," particularly interesting and relevant. The authors identify three differences between information and knowledge: 1) knowledge usually entails a knower (the person who knows), 2) knowledge appears harder to detach (than information), and 3) knowledge requires assimilation. So these days, with all the talk about hot distance education trends and increasing on-line and other technology-mediated educational programming, we need to remain mindful of the need for technology-mediated programming to empower folks to learn, i.e., acquire and assimilate knowledge.

I also appreciated Brown and Duguid's insightful discussion regarding changes in higher education. It is true that an opportunity exists to provide greater access to higher education through the expanding use of information technologies. But, it is important to distinguish the current hype about distance learning from the reality of what really is currently available and accessible. The authors also draw distinctions between social distance and geographical distance and the dangers of polarization. I also agree that the goal should be access to higher education.

Rating:
Summary: provoking ideas for study in the current environment
Review: I got a better understanding and appreciation for the adaptation process of technology because of cultural environments. I agree with the authors' points of the limitations of technology as they are today. But as our social environment evolves and as technology advances to promote new social interactions, I do see the possibility of using bots as decision makers, of having employees work from home, and etc. The authors' assessment of the social culture as being static simplifies the dynamic interactions between social culture and technology.

Rating:
Summary: Full of ah-ha moments, though a bit of a slow read.
Review: I just finished reading The Social Life of Information, by John Seeley Brown and Paul Duguid. This was not the quickest read; it's a business book with the obtuseness of vocabulary that implies. However, if you're a computer person with any desire to see your work in a larger context, this is a book you should read. In it, they examine eight separate areas in which computers, and the internet in particular, have supposedly changed our lives (this is typically called 'hype', though the authors don't use the word) in the latter years of the 20th century. (This book is copyright 2000.) You probably remember some of these claims: the death of the corporation, of the university, of paper documents, of the corporate office. In each chapter, they review one claim, show how the claim's proponents over-simplify the issue, and look at the (new and old) responses of people and institutions to the problem that the claim was trying to solve. They also examine, in detail, the ways in which humans process information, and how the software that is often touted as a replacement simply isn't.

I really enjoy 'ah-ha' moments; these are times where I look back at my experiences in a new light, thanks to a theory that justifies or explains something that I didn't understand. For example, I remember when I started my first professional job, right out of college, I thought the whole point of work was to, well, work. So I sat in my cube and worked 8 solid hours a day. After a few months, when I still didn't know anyone at the office, but had to ask someone how to modify a script I was working on, I learned the value of social interaction at the office. (Actually, I was so clueless, I had to ask someone to find the appropriate someone to ask.) While examining the concept of the home office, the authors state "[t]he office social system plays a major part in keeping tools (and people) up and running." It's not just work that happens at the office--there's collaboration and informal learning.

I've worked remotely in the past year for the first time, and anyone who's worked remotely has experienced a moment of frustration when trying to explain something and wished they were just "there," to show rather than tell--the authors refer to this process as 'huddling.' When someone is changing a software configuration that I'm not intimately familiar, it's much easier to judge correct options and settings if I'm there. The authors explain that "[huddling] is often a way of getting things done through collaboration. At home with frail and fickle technologies and unlimited configurations, people paradoxically may need to huddle even more, but can't." This collaboration is even more important between peers.

Reading about the home office and its lack of informal networks (which do occur around the corporate office) really drove home the social nature of work. After a few years at my company, I had cross-departmental relationships (often struck up over beer Friday) that truly eased some of my pain. Often, knowing who to ask a question is more important than knowing the answer to the question. It's not impossible to build those relationships when you're working remotely, but it's much more difficult.

Another enjoyable moment of clarity arose when the authors discussed the nature of documents. I think of a document as a Word file, or perhaps a set of printed out pages. The explicit information (words, diagrams, etc) that I can get from the document is the focus (and this is certainly the case in document management systems sales pitches). But there's a lot more to a document. How do I know how much to trust the information? Well, if it's on a website somewhere, that's a fair bit sketchier than if it's in the newspaper, which is in turn less trustworthy than if I've experienced the information myself. Documents validate information--we've all picked up a book, hefted it, examined it, and judged it based on its cover. The authors say "readers look beyond the information in documents. ... The investment evident in a document's material content is often a good indicator of the investment in its informational content." Just as if someone says "trust me" you should probably run the other way, information alone can't attest to its own veracity. The authors also look at aspects to documents (like history, like feel, like layout) that simply aren't captured when you treat them as streams of bits.

And there are many other examples of 'hype' that are deflated in this book, and a few other 'ah-ha' moments as well. As I stated above, this is a great read for anyone who thinks there is a technical answer to any problem (or even most problems). By taking apart various claims, and examining the truth and untruth of those claims in a real world context, these two authors give technology credit where it's due, while at the same time explaining why some of the older institutions and important factors in our lives will remain around. Reading this book was hard work, but understanding what the authors say gives me yet another way to relate to non-technical people, as well as fend off the zealots who claim, in a knee-jerk fashion, that more software solves problems. I majored in physics, in college, but minored in politics. It always seemed that the people problems, though more squishy, were more interesting. This book is confirmation of that fact.

Rating:
Summary: Thought-Provoking Look at the Limits to Pure Information
Review: I liked this book, because it focused on many things that I don't normally think about, and raised important questions about my own use of information. For example, how can a software program find my preferences on the Web when I'm not sure what I'm looking for? How can I compare offers when I know very little about the people making the offers?

Many aggressive pundits who favor the development of electronic communication and information tend to project that certain products and services will be totally replaced. For example, I have read forcasts that predict the end of printed books, universities, and various kinds of retail outlets in the next few years. The authors point out that many solutions and institutions will continue because they offer a social context that makes information more valuable. A historical analogy of the telephone is described in the book. Bell first put telephones in hotel rooms so people could call the front desk, a convenience over walking to the front desk to have the conversation. Later, he put telephones next to the counter in diners so that people could watch others using the telephone to learn how and why people were using it. Many people who see distance learning as replacing the university are forgetting that much education takes place outside of lectures, writing papers and taking tests. The university's social context will continue to be helpful with these other types of learning.

One of the most interesting concepts in the book was the way that structure and structurelessness in information and uses of information can complement each other in creating bodies of perspective and experimentation.

The issues and examples are compelling, interesting, and thought-provoking.

If you want to examine how you should adapt your own actions and those of your organization to the Internet, this book is essential reading!

Rating:
Summary: Good Enough
Review: I really wanted to like this book. I like the authors. I like their prior work. I think it's just that I'm just the wrong reader. Well, not exactly that either. The book seems to have two parts. Chapters 1-3 are very gentle, lay introductions to some of the rhetoric of the information / commuication age. These chapters also offer an interesting view of the history of the naiscent information age. Chapters 4 - 8 are much more compelling, discussing knowledge and education and organizations, with liberal use of real world organizations and experiences as illustrations. From chapter 6 on, it's fairly brilliant, offering a new ways of thinking about KM and intellectual property (sticky and leaky knowledge), and education as an enterprise. (The sections on the future and role of higher ed. are must reading, and I'm not going to give it away here.) It does remain very readable, however, and that should count for a lot.

Rating:
Summary: The best book on KM practice
Review: I use "The social life of information" almost daily. I have read a lot of literature on Knowledge Management, but this is the best one I've come across when it comes to behind down-to-earth on this vast issue. The most difficult part of KM is to transfer know-what into know-how, which I believe, can be done without all the high-flying nonsense that is normally called KM. John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid make things simple, while it seems that most other authors of this genre do exactly the opposite.

Rating:
Summary: not what i expected
Review: i was compelled to read this book by the sexy title and areview in salon... which upon finishing the book i reread to seewhere i was led astray. the only truly worthwhile is chapter six, with other interesting bits scattered sparsely throughout. chapters 1-5 are such that the reader will either inherently understand the concepts, or conversely never will. fans of scott adams' dilbert principle will no doubt enjoy these chapters, finding numerous ideas to support their criticisms of management, but quite honestly i expected more.

Rating:
Summary: Timely must read book
Review: I work every day with businesses that are using computer technology and teach people at several universities at a technical level. Most people have no idea of what is really going on. A person the other day came up to me and described his product as "you know the computer on Star Trek that you just talk to and they talk back like humans? That's what our product does." I have a degree in linguistics and decades of experience in software development and I knew he was full of it, but how is someone to judge?

I have been recommending everyone read the Social Life of Information. Not only for its accurate assesment of technology, but because the issue of social capital is one that we all need to address, especially in the technical areas. This book promises to be influential in the next decade on many levels.

Rating:
Summary: A vital piece of the electronic marketing puzzle
Review: If you are trying to assemble a comprehensive view of electronic marketing, this book contains critical pieces. Other than Moore's Law, few recent predictions have actually foretold events in this field. Alongside books about the possibilities of e-marketing--exploiting our ability to collect, sort and distribute information--this book highlights the limits of pure information, and points to contrary social forces. Especially for people with a layman's background in technology, I think this book is a must-read.

Rating:
Summary: The Social Life of Reviewers
Review: If you would like proof of the authors' thesis in the Social Life of Information, all you have to do is read all the reviews for the book. Take a moment and do that, then come back here...

Finished? Any thoughts?

Okay, here's their basic thesis: most interesting information is socially situated, socially constructed, or otherwise impossible to tear from its human roots and package into transferrable units of "knowledge". This has major implications for the viability of certain kinds of information systems, educational programs, and the evolution of an "information society". Yet, most information workers and information products appear to be oblivious to these implications.

The proof? Ask yourself how you feel when you read a book review on-line. How do you feel when one review raves about the book and another review lambasts it? How do you feel when a reviewer gives you instructions that he expects you to follow, as I just gave? Do you follow them? What point is there to my asking "any thoughts?" when obviously you can't answer?

You don't know me. You can't trust me. I'm not a part of your social system. The only way I can participate in your learning at all is if you see in these words something that touches you... and if so, that is little more than a happy coincidence: neither of us could have planned it.

My point is that these reviews offer an illusion of a social system, but there's nothing much behind that illusion. It's cool write one, yes, in the way that scratching my name on a tree used to feel cool. But I find it very difficult to put these reviews to any practical use. I can't know who to trust. Isn't that how you feel, too? Consequently, these reviews are not capsules of knowledge pouring into your thirsty head. This review system is an example of the sort of shallow informationism that the authors complain about in their fascinating book.

So why am I writing a review if I don't think it's likely that you'll find what I say useful? Well, I'm really writing to my students and colleagues, with each of whom I already have a connection. You know who you are. I teach software quality assurance and testing. This is a wonderful book that I recommend as a tool for making sense of how a process specialist's place in the social order influences his prospects for getting anything useful done.

This book drove the final nail in the coffin of my hope that if I could only write a good enough process document, someone would follow the processes I prescribe. Now I know better. Not because Brown and Duguid say so (I don't know them, either) but because what they say rings so true to my *own* experience. People learn primarily by doing and experiencing in a system that includes other people. We are not merely information consumers. Process standardization, in the knowledge world, is therefore a fruitless or dangerous pursuit without considering the social context of practices.

Thanks for reading. (why am I thanking you? I'm stuck in this illusion of online society!)

For more on this, see my review of Cognition in the Wild. I can't promise that will help, but you might get lucky.

-- James