Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart

Rating:
Summary: Some effective arguments, some misguided
Review: According to the authors of this book we shouldn't believe that we can solve every problem by simply throwing technology at it. Nor should we be Luddites, bury our heads in the sand, and ignore the value of technology. The authors take the "middle ground", and present the the position that we must be "critical friends" of technology, and be sure that we not blindly accept technology as a panacea and allow it to dominate our lives.

I found some of their arguments against technological advances to be weak in some areas. For example, they discuss the moral ramifications of cloning, and whether or not we should allow cloning of human beings, or even investigate the possibility, "just because we can." They also quoted J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the hydrogen bomb, about his team's desire to move forward and build the bomb simply because they had proved in theory that it was possible. What to do with the bomb would be someone else's decision. I found the authors' arguments to be ineffective in that these situations represent extreme positions that most people could agree with. However, major advancements in science, medicine, mathematics and other fields have been achieved by individuals simply trying to "push the envelope." Indeed, the original hacker community was not a group of individuals trying to break into secure servers, they were programmers obsessed with perfection in programming techniques, trying to find the most efficient way to accomplish a task with the least amount of code. I wonder what side the authors would take in George Mallory's position of climbing Mt. Everest simply "because it's there." What would a "critical friend" of Mallory's say to him about his motivation?

I was a bit disturbed by their portrayal of Nicholas Negroponte as a someone who blindly accepts and promotes technology and it's inevitable place in our future, with no consideration of the consequences. They chide him for the technology-driven Utopia he describes in his book "Being Digital", with its technology that lacks any sense of social meaning or integration into society. Their portrayal fell just short of comparing Negroponte to Victor Frankenstein.

I felt their portrayal of Negroponte on one end of the scale and Cliff Stoll on the other was inaccurate. Though their opinions differ, they hardly represent the extreme ends of the spectrum. I suspect the authors' motivation for choosing these two individuals was their relative fame in the online community.

The authors conducted a number of impressive case studies that dominate the second half of the book. I found these chapters to be much more enjoyable and informative than the earlier chapters that attempt to strengthen their arguments. Their selection of librarians as a "keystone species" in the information ecology was insightful. I found their arguments for this selection as effective, but it too fell short. Rather than focusing simply on the end user, they could have also argued for the use of skilled librarians on the server and design end of the equation. The huge need for librarian skills at the client end highlights the deficiencies at the server and design end of the net.

I have never met an individual who believes that all of society's ills can be solved by throwing technology at it, as Nicholas Negroponte is portrayed in this book. If such a person does exist, this book was written for him or her, as it would be for a true Luddite. Unfortunately, I don't believe either would be swayed effectively by the authors' arguments.

Rating:
Summary: Some effective arguments, some misguided
Review: According to the authors of this book we shouldn't believe that we can solve every problem by simply throwing technology at it. Nor should we be Luddites, bury our heads in the sand, and ignore the value of technology. The authors take the "middle ground", and present the the position that we must be "critical friends" of technology, and be sure that we not blindly accept technology as a panacea and allow it to dominate our lives.

I found some of their arguments against technological advances to be weak in some areas. For example, they discuss the moral ramifications of cloning, and whether or not we should allow cloning of human beings, or even investigate the possibility, "just because we can." They also quoted J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the hydrogen bomb, about his team's desire to move forward and build the bomb simply because they had proved in theory that it was possible. What to do with the bomb would be someone else's decision. I found the authors' arguments to be ineffective in that these situations represent extreme positions that most people could agree with. However, major advancements in science, medicine, mathematics and other fields have been achieved by individuals simply trying to "push the envelope." Indeed, the original hacker community was not a group of individuals trying to break into secure servers, they were programmers obsessed with perfection in programming techniques, trying to find the most efficient way to accomplish a task with the least amount of code. I wonder what side the authors would take in George Mallory's position of climbing Mt. Everest simply "because it's there." What would a "critical friend" of Mallory's say to him about his motivation?

I was a bit disturbed by their portrayal of Nicholas Negroponte as a someone who blindly accepts and promotes technology and it's inevitable place in our future, with no consideration of the consequences. They chide him for the technology-driven Utopia he describes in his book "Being Digital", with its technology that lacks any sense of social meaning or integration into society. Their portrayal fell just short of comparing Negroponte to Victor Frankenstein.

I felt their portrayal of Negroponte on one end of the scale and Cliff Stoll on the other was inaccurate. Though their opinions differ, they hardly represent the extreme ends of the spectrum. I suspect the authors' motivation for choosing these two individuals was their relative fame in the online community.

The authors conducted a number of impressive case studies that dominate the second half of the book. I found these chapters to be much more enjoyable and informative than the earlier chapters that attempt to strengthen their arguments. Their selection of librarians as a "keystone species" in the information ecology was insightful. I found their arguments for this selection as effective, but it too fell short. Rather than focusing simply on the end user, they could have also argued for the use of skilled librarians on the server and design end of the equation. The huge need for librarian skills at the client end highlights the deficiencies at the server and design end of the net.

I have never met an individual who believes that all of society's ills can be solved by throwing technology at it, as Nicholas Negroponte is portrayed in this book. If such a person does exist, this book was written for him or her, as it would be for a true Luddite. Unfortunately, I don't believe either would be swayed effectively by the authors' arguments.

Rating:
Summary: Yawn!
Review: I had to read this book for a college course, sorry to say. Otherwise, trust me, I wouldn't have gotten through this entire mess. The authors have about three common sense points to make and take about 100 pages to make each of those points. I'd like to know what qualifies them to write this book anyways. Bottom line is it's a complete waste of time!

Rating:
Summary: Yawn!
Review: I had to read this book for a college course, sorry to say. Otherwise, trust me, I wouldn't have gotten through this entire mess. The authors have about three common sense points to make and take about 100 pages to make each of those points. I'd like to know what qualifies them to write this book anyways. Bottom line is it's a complete waste of time!

Rating:
Summary: A great concept with weak follow through
Review: I really wanted Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart by Bonnie Nardi and Vicki O'Day to be a great book. Unfortunately it was only OK. As a librarian, with an undergraduate degree in Anthropology, I was intrigued that O'Day was described as a graduate student in anthropology and that the authors were using a library setting as one of their case studies. Finally, I thought, someone will definitively present to the world the value of what it is librarians DO and with anthropologically informed insight!

The authors do a very good job of summarizing the various "framing conversations" and "metaphors" that have been used to talk about technology and as the basis for analyzing the impact of technological change. They cite many books that I have read and enjoyed as thought-provoking discussions of technology and its role in society (Being Digital, Silicon Snake Oil, The Gutenberg Elegies, Technopoly, Life on the Screen) and use them to bolster their arguments in ways that will probably encourage others to seek out those books and read them (in fact I am inspired to delve into "ancient history" and read some of the older, seminal works the authors cite).

The writing style of the book is very clear and cordial but every time I felt I was being led through interesting discourse to a logical conclusion or culminating POINT I would exit a paragraph or chapter feeling somehow that there was no "there" there.

Interesting questions were raised and a persuasive thesis was put forward concerning why the old ways of thinking about technology should be superceded by their metaphor of "information ecology". The authors note (pg. 70) that "It is common to leap ahead to 'how' questions when we think about technology. [...] It is less common - but crucially important - to ask a full range of "why questions as well [...]" But at the end of the first section I felt *all* I had was a framework of questions, and no discussion of how the answers define an information ecology. The authors "conclusion" (page 74) was apparently that the whole matter is a "complex business" and "change can become confusing and overwhelming" but "talk" and "experiments" and "local settings" are the answer.

To which I heaved a sigh of "HUH?" and moved on to part 2 where I was promised that we would "look in detail at specific information ecologies ... [and] see examples that show diversity, coevolution, keystone species, and the application of values". OK! I was ready for some solid field work and logical analysis of the data to substantiate their new way of examining technology. What did I find? Redundant, boring, embarrassing and CONFUSING transcripts of interactions that definitely lost something in the translation. I have personal and extensive experience in environments similar to those described in chapters 7 (Librarians: a keystone species) and 9 (Cultivating Gardeners: the importance of homegrown expertise) and I couldn't tell how the material presented was supposed to illustrate their points! This is not to say that I didn't find much of the discussion interesting as a point of departure for thinking about those situations - but the transcripts of interviews were a distraction and waste of time. They should have been relegated to footnotes (or left out entirely). By the time I got to Chapter 10 and had to read interviews that were filled with "Yeah. And it's weird. I thought it was weird how you can get a picture into the computer" ... well, ya know it was, like, gag me with a spoon, ya know?

The last chapter was primarily a rehash of dozens of articles praising the Internet "as a riveting global phenomenon with important implications for local information ecologies". They state that "Information ecologies are local habitations with recognizable participants and practices" but nothing in the previous 184 pages had demonstrated that to me! I felt as if Chapter 13 had been tacked on to fill the book out to a reasonable length.

In spite of it all, I give the book 3 stars (I'd give it 2 1/2 if I could) because of the first section and the interesting observations that are scattered in the second section. The concluding paragraph on the last page quotes Annie Dillard - "we need to call our attention to what passes before our eyes". This book DOES do that - but I had hoped for so much more.

Rating:
Summary: A great concept with weak follow through
Review: I really wanted Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart by Bonnie Nardi and Vicki O'Day to be a great book. Unfortunately it was only OK. As a librarian, with an undergraduate degree in Anthropology, I was intrigued that O'Day was described as a graduate student in anthropology and that the authors were using a library setting as one of their case studies. Finally, I thought, someone will definitively present to the world the value of what it is librarians DO and with anthropologically informed insight!

The authors do a very good job of summarizing the various "framing conversations" and "metaphors" that have been used to talk about technology and as the basis for analyzing the impact of technological change. They cite many books that I have read and enjoyed as thought-provoking discussions of technology and its role in society (Being Digital, Silicon Snake Oil, The Gutenberg Elegies, Technopoly, Life on the Screen) and use them to bolster their arguments in ways that will probably encourage others to seek out those books and read them (in fact I am inspired to delve into "ancient history" and read some of the older, seminal works the authors cite).

The writing style of the book is very clear and cordial but every time I felt I was being led through interesting discourse to a logical conclusion or culminating POINT I would exit a paragraph or chapter feeling somehow that there was no "there" there.

Interesting questions were raised and a persuasive thesis was put forward concerning why the old ways of thinking about technology should be superceded by their metaphor of "information ecology". The authors note (pg. 70) that "It is common to leap ahead to 'how' questions when we think about technology. [...] It is less common - but crucially important - to ask a full range of "why questions as well [...]" But at the end of the first section I felt *all* I had was a framework of questions, and no discussion of how the answers define an information ecology. The authors "conclusion" (page 74) was apparently that the whole matter is a "complex business" and "change can become confusing and overwhelming" but "talk" and "experiments" and "local settings" are the answer.

To which I heaved a sigh of "HUH?" and moved on to part 2 where I was promised that we would "look in detail at specific information ecologies ... [and] see examples that show diversity, coevolution, keystone species, and the application of values". OK! I was ready for some solid field work and logical analysis of the data to substantiate their new way of examining technology. What did I find? Redundant, boring, embarrassing and CONFUSING transcripts of interactions that definitely lost something in the translation. I have personal and extensive experience in environments similar to those described in chapters 7 (Librarians: a keystone species) and 9 (Cultivating Gardeners: the importance of homegrown expertise) and I couldn't tell how the material presented was supposed to illustrate their points! This is not to say that I didn't find much of the discussion interesting as a point of departure for thinking about those situations - but the transcripts of interviews were a distraction and waste of time. They should have been relegated to footnotes (or left out entirely). By the time I got to Chapter 10 and had to read interviews that were filled with "Yeah. And it's weird. I thought it was weird how you can get a picture into the computer" ... well, ya know it was, like, gag me with a spoon, ya know?

The last chapter was primarily a rehash of dozens of articles praising the Internet "as a riveting global phenomenon with important implications for local information ecologies". They state that "Information ecologies are local habitations with recognizable participants and practices" but nothing in the previous 184 pages had demonstrated that to me! I felt as if Chapter 13 had been tacked on to fill the book out to a reasonable length.

In spite of it all, I give the book 3 stars (I'd give it 2 1/2 if I could) because of the first section and the interesting observations that are scattered in the second section. The concluding paragraph on the last page quotes Annie Dillard - "we need to call our attention to what passes before our eyes". This book DOES do that - but I had hoped for so much more.

Rating:
Summary: Good Explanation of How People Deal With Technology.
Review: I was fortunate enough to know Bonnie Nardi when I worked for AT&T. I read her book and enjoyed it. She is an anthropologist and this book explains how humans deal with technology. Might be a little advanced for some, but give it a try.

Rating:
Summary: Good Explanation of How People Deal With Technology.
Review: I was fortunate enough to know Bonnie Nardi when I worked for AT&T. I read her book and enjoyed it. She is an anthropologist and this book explains how humans deal with technology. Might be a little advanced for some, but give it a try.

Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for thoughtful use of technology.
Review: I work with the Web, while my husband is a Luddite who can barely manage an ATM card; this wonderful book speaks equally to both of us. Most of us assume that technology, whether we like it or not, is inevitable. Nardi and O'Day point out that this assumption is both unfortunate and preventable. We need to WAKE UP from our passive acceptance of the tide that overwhelms us with everything from cell-phones to cloning, and question WHY we use the technologies that have come to inhabit our everyday lives. We must also closely observe the technology-supported human encounters that we take for granted. For example, I use e-mail to serve the public; the e-mail makes my service much faster, but without thoughtful, compassionate, human-written responses, the swiftness of e-mail is pointless. By closely observing our habits with a questioning mind, we can then actively shape our use of technology, and even politely decline some of these fabulous new bells and whistles that do not serve us so well. In an information ecology, people engage in an interdependent manner with their local technology. The authors explain this concept at length, with plenty of historical references, and cite fascinating examples, such as invisible services performed by corporate librarians, and a virtual world within an elementary school that has jumpstarted reading, writing, and social skill levels for at-risk students. O'Day's and Nardi's careful writing makes this a breeze to read, even for those completely unfamiliar with technological terms. I finished this book with a new sense of power over my own environment, equipped with keener observation and the reminder to always ask "Why?"

Rating:
Summary: Unique Perspectives on our Technological Society
Review: In Information Ecologies, Nardi and O'DAy offer their perspectives on how technology is affecting our society in both an anthropological as well as a sociological view. This is a unique book because it is written, firstly, by two people who have spent time working in the technology industry, as well as studying it intensively. The case studies they offer in the second half of the book are fascinating and objective.

For a reader who may be looking for objective facts and the technical aspects of technology, this book may not prove useful. However, for a reader interested in different opinions and willing to read with an open mind, knowing that Nardi and O'DAy offer their opinions based on their experiences and beliefs, this is a wonderful book. It not only gives enough concrete knowledge of how technology evolved, became important to humankind, and how it is affecting our society today, it offers it in a anthropological manner, which I enjoyed very much.

Although I realise that the examples they used seem exaggerated at times in order to punctuate their argument, I believe that they succeeded in their objective with this book. They both clearly have great experience and knowledge in the world of technology, and they have both attempted to take a step back from that world to look at how it is affecting us as people. I especially found their case studies to be fascinating and very relevant to their argument and style. They made the book stand out as a very informational book which has set my mind to thinking in different ways. It has made me more reflective on simple things we now take for granted, such as email. How is email as my form of communication affecting the quality of my communication, I have asked myself recently. Books such as these can engage many controversial conversations which are necessary. We must realise that our actions have consequences, no matter how insignificant they may seem. I believe that this is one of the things they were stressing in terms of technological advancement.

As an admirer of anthropology, and a student of technology, I found the mixture of the two in this book to be a perfect informational and educational read.