The Sociotechnical in Digital Sociology: Methodological Possibilities and Limitations
EDN: VKPLNS
Abstract
Depending on the disciplinary direction and the scale of technological diffusion that was relevant at the time, the study of human-computer interaction has been characterized by various concepts. This article will focus on the main contexts of the sociotechnical - one of the concepts that is widely used to describe systems and processes, and one that includes different elements or participants - people and technologies. Such trade-offs between social and technical concepts emerged in the engineering research literature in the 1970s, were gradually adopted in the social sciences, and reached the same level of disciplinary interest by the mid-2000s. The problem of the sociotechnical continues to grow in connection with the constantly expanding digital user technologies - together with their barriers, complexities, errors and breakages - which attracts the research attention of social scientists. This work has two goals. First, the dynamics of studying the sociotechnical in different disciplinary directions will be demonstrated. For this purpose, using the Scopus publications database, the main contexts, issues and topics of relevant research will be identified for the period from 1969 to the present. Secondly, the specific features of sociotechnical research in Science and Technology Studies (STS) and digital sociology - where reflexivity in relation to the research process, data, methods, and interpretations is of great importance - will be highlighted. In conclusion, the article considers the possibilities and limitations of studying sociotechnical in conditions of technocratic discourse and the development of the digital economy.
About the Author
Liliia V. ZemnukhovaRussian Federation
PhD in sociology
References
1. Bijker W.Е., Law J. (1992) General Introduction. W.E. Bijker, J. Law (Eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1-16.
2. Bijker W.E. (1993) Do Not Despair: There Is Life after Constructivism. Science, Technology, Sr Human Values, 18(1) Theme Issue: Technological Choices (Winter): 113-138.
3. Bolter J., Gromala D. (2003) Windows and Mirrors: Interaction Design, Digital Art, and the Myth of Transparency. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: The MIT Press.
4. Bonen Z. (1979a) Evolution of a Sociotechnical System, A Model and Some Implications. Sloan School Working Paper.
5. Bonen Z. (1979b) Evolutionary behavior of complex sociotechnical systems. Cambridge, Mass.: Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, M.I.T.
6. Boyd D. (2007) Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1): 210-230.
7. Carroll J. (2003) HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
8. Collins H., Evans R. (2002) The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2): 235-296.
9. Crocitto М., Mohamed A. (2003) Youssef: The human side of organizational agility. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 103(6): 388-397.
10. Harvey E. (1968) Technology and the Structure of Organizations. American Sociological Review, 33(2) (Apr): 247-259.
11. Hine C. (2015) Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. Huntingdon, GBR: Bloomsbury Publishing.
12. Kling R. (1992) When Gunfire Shatters Bone: Reducing Sociotechnical Systems to Social Relationships. Science, Technology Sr Human Values, 17(3): 381-385.
13. Licklider J. (1960) Man-Computer Symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, Vol. HFE-1:4-11.
14. Licklider J., Clark W. (1962) On-line man-computer communication. Proceeding AIEE-IRE '62 (Spring) Proceedings of the May 1-3:113-128.
15. Licklider J., Taylor R. (1968) The Computer as a Communication Device. Science and Technology. (April) 76:21-31.
16. Lupton D. (2012) Digital Sociology: An Introduction. Sydney: Univeristy of Sydney.
17. Sivkov D. (2017). Bol’shie dannye v etnografii: vyzovy i vozmozhnosti [Big Data and Ethnography: Challenges and Opportunities]. Sotsiologiia nauki i tekhnologii [Sociology of Science and Technology], 8(2): 56-67.
Review
For citations:
Zemnukhova L.V. The Sociotechnical in Digital Sociology: Methodological Possibilities and Limitations. Sociology of Power. 2018;30(3):54-68. (In Russ.) EDN: VKPLNS