Showing papers by "Susan Leigh Star published in 1998"

Human centered systems in the perspective of organizational and social informatics

Abstract: In 1993, the term \"digital libraries\" was popularized when it became the focus of a $24 million research program jointly sponsored by ARPA, NASA, and NSF. Many computer scientists, in fields such as human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, information retrieval, and information systems, who had not previously been concerned with the design of libraries became keenly interested in this research opportunity. Imaginative entrepreneurial computer scientists and information scientists soon began organizing research conferences on digital libraries, and a new field was soon born. The example of digital libraries is but one example where a coalition of research agencies (or even a single agency) effectively initiates new fields and even names them. In 1997, there were several sustained discussions within the NSF about organizing research around new field labels--\"human centered systems\" and \"knowledge and distributed intelligence.\" Terms like these emerge from informal discussions between research program directors and members of the research communities whom they fund. Sometimes the terms have significant intellectual or institutional histories while sometime they are neologisms. It is common for the NSF to try to flash out meaningful research agendas for such new fields by organizing workshops of scientists with relevant interests. The following article is a portion of a report that was part of these efforts. The Committee on Computing, Information, and Communication of the National Science and Technology Council identified five components for a High Performance Computing Program, and referred to one of them as \"HumanCentered Systems.\" HCI specialists, Prof. Jim Flanagan of Rutgers and Prof. Tom Huang of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were invited by program directors of NSF's Division on Information, Robotics and Intelligent Systems to organize a research workshop in February 1997. The label for the new field was called Human Centered Computing, Human Centered Systems, and Human Centered Intelligent Systems in the various stages of planning. A steering committee of 13 members (including Rob Kling and Leigh Star) met in November 1996 and developed some key themes and structures for the February workshop. There were to be a number of invited speakers and four thematic groups; each group would produce a section of the final report. One group, led by us, focussed on the organizational and social analysis computerization (called organizational and social informatics and described in much more detail at ht tp:/ / www.slis.indiana.edu/SI). Its members included Sara Kiesler, Phil Agre, Geoffrey Bowker, Paul Attewell, and Celestine Ntuen. Phil Agre played an important role in moderating the groups' meetings. The term \"human centered automation,\" which is one of the intellectual roots of the term \"Human Centered Systems,\" has been advanced within the field of human factors to refer to system that are (1) based on an analysis of the human tasks that the system is aiding (2) monitored for performance in terms of human benefits (3) built to take account of human skills and (4) adaptable easily to changing human needs. This conception emphasizes specialized technologies with human operators, including aircraft, advanced weapons systems, telemedical systems, and various kinds of control rooms. The organizational and social informatics group saw the value of a concept, such as human-centered systems in a broader perspective and ways to conceptualize the term were a major part of our deliberations and a key part of our report. What follows is a portion of the report from this group, Chapter 5 of Human Centered Systems. The complete report, which includes descriptions of the participants, can be found at http://www.ifp.uiuc.edu/nsfllcs/.

Grounded Classification: Grounded Theory and Faceted Classification.

Abstract: THISARTIC1,E COMPARES THE QUALITATIVE METHOD Of grounded theory (GT) with Ranganathan’s construction of faceted classifications (FC) in library and information science. Both struggle with a core problem-i.e., the representation of vernacular words and processes, empirically discovered, which will, although ethnographically faithful, be powerful beyond the single instance or case study. The article compares Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) work with that of Ranganathan( 1950).

Building Information Infrastructures for Social Worlds - The Role of Classifications and Standards

Abstract: Through an analysis of information systems in medical communities - notably the development of the International Classification of Diseases and the design of a Nursing Interventions Classification scheme - we argue that community systems designers necessarily build for multiple social worlds simultaneously. So doing, we argue, they make a series of significant social and political choices. We draw some design implications from this observation: notably arguing for a sensitivity to the nature of the work of representing a community to itself.

On Coming Home and Intellectual Generosity

Abstract: We are honored to be the guest editors for this special issue centered on work in the tradition of Anselm Strauss. Because afestsclwift for Anselm with papers by most of his close colleagues and students was already published (Maines 1991). we have devoted this special issue to work by the “next generation” of interactionists working with Straussian approaches. The one exception is the paper by Isabelle Baszanger, who edited a volume of Anselm’s collected papers in French (Baszanger 1992a). Because she provides such an insightful and provocative overview of Anselm’s scholarly work, Baszanger’s introductory paper for that volume appears here in English.’ This allows us as editors to dwell instead on Anselm’s contributions to life itself as teacher, advisor, and friend. Both of us were Anselm’s students during the early 1980s. And, for both of us. finding Anselm and his work was an intellectual homecoming, a long-awaited coming in from the academic cold. We know many others have shared this intense and life-shaping experience, many without ever having met the truly exceptional man who was Anselm Strauss. Some of their papers are included here. We know, too, that for those who did meet him, a fundamental part of this was meeting Fran Strauss--often the smiling person opening the door to a new world. Their lives together were team efforts always, and the wholes were always considerably greater than the sum of the parts. Before we introduce the papers in this special issue, we want to briefly comment on the breadth of Anselm’s connections and the wide international network he and Fran created and maintained down to the last moments of his life, which Fran nurtures still. Ans’elm was an exceptionally generative teacher and colleague. His was an intellectual generosity, always available-his own poor health permitting. He relished helping people who were stuck in their work-especially with their (often belated) analysis of (too much) data, often collected without following the first precept of grounded theory: start analyzing immediately!