Getting Information Systems to Interact: The Social Fact Character of “Object” Clarity as a Factor in Designing Information Systems

Rawls, Anne Warfield; Mann, David

doi:10.1080/01972243.2015.998106

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the nature and identity of what is shared through symbolic objects is constituted in the very practices of communication(Garfinkel, 2008;Rawls & Mann, 2015). Meanings and language rules are always open to be refashioned according to the situation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Till Data Do Us Part: Understanding Data-Based Value Creation in Data-Intensive Infrastructures

Tempini¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the literature on value creation in social media-based infrastructures has largely neglected the pivotal role of data and their processes. This paper tries to move beyond this limitation and discusses data-based value creation in data-intensive infrastructures, such as social media, by focusing on processes of data generation, use and reuse, and on infrastructure development activities. Building on current debates in value theory, the paper develops a multidimensional value framework to interrogate the data collected in an embedded ethnographical case study of the development of PatientsLikeMe, a social media network for patients. It asks when, and where, value is created from the data, and what kinds of value are created from them, as they move through the data infrastructure; and how infrastructure evolution relates to, and shapes, existing data-based value creation practices. The findings show that infrastructure development can have unpredictable consequences for data-based value creation, shaping shared practices in complex ways and through a web of interdependent situations. The paper argues for an understanding of infrastructural innovation that accounts for the situational interdependencies of data use and reuse. Uniquely positioned, the paper demonstrates the importance of research that looks critically into processes of data use in infrastructures to keep abreast of the social consequences of developments in big data and data analytics aimed at exploiting all kinds of digital traces for multiple purposes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Till Data Do Us Part: Understanding Data-Based Value Creation in Data-Intensive Infrastructures

Tempini¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study was ethnographic in trying to show how the assumptions that systems engineers were making sometimes made it impossible for them even to talk about their objectives. Because they were making assumptions we might call “epistemic”—about the durability of objects and meaning and allowing those assumptions to shape the way they both worked and talked—they were unable to make their objects work across knowledge boundaries (Rawls and Mann, 2015).…”

Section: Displaced and Ambivalent Uses Of Ethnography In Em And Camentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnography in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis: Both, neither, or something else altogether?

Rawls

Lynch

2022

Qualitative Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on various ethnographic procedures and findings in ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA), addressing the question of how EM and CA relate to ethnography. Given the obvious answer that EM includes ethnography, we also argue that CA does as well, though just how EM and CA do so needs to be qualified and specified. Ethnographic procedures have been used in EM for decades, although often in non-standard ways, and currently with some ambivalence. In CA, it is more common to disavow ethnography in favor of recorded and transcribed interactional exchanges. However, we argue that CA often makes use of ethnographic insights drawn from extended study of recordings, while also identifying “ethnographic” inquiries of a sort that take place within the organizational settings studied. Our aim is to identify the place of ethnography within EMCA by taking an inventory of ways “ethnography” has been used, invoked, produced, and/or disavowed in particular studies and to highlight what is distinctive about those various EMCA uses of ethnography in contrast with more conventional ethnography.

show abstract

“…His focus on ‘The Jew as a Social Object’ had, by 1958, transitioned to studies of transgender identity, and by the 1970s to a comprehensive programme of studies designed to reveal hidden taken-for-granted social practices and the conditions of equality they require across all social domains. The findings eventually became so broad that studies of how incongruities are produced and treated informed Garfinkel’s own studies of science, and the constitutive features of reciprocity in communication and interaction (developed in collaboration with his colleague and student Harvey Sacks) became an important resource in studies of technical work and science (Lynch, 1993; Rawls and Mann, 2015; Suchman, 2007). The persistent misinterpretation of Garfinkel’s position is a loss to both sociology and the general aim of achieving a just society.…”

Section: Garfinkel’s Studies Of Interactional Trouble Document the Nementioning

confidence: 99%

The development of Garfinkel’s ‘Trust’ argument from 1947 to 1967: Demonstrating how inequality disrupts sense and self-making

Turowetz

Rawls

2020

Journal of Classical Sociology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Garfinkel began developing his famous Trust argument, that a minimum of equality and reciprocity he called ‘Trust Conditions’ is a prerequisite for sense-making in interaction, while working with Parsons from 1946 to 1952. The argument grounds a social justice approach to social order and meaning with affinities to Durkheim’s ‘implicit conditions of contract’ and Du Bois’ ‘double consciousness’. Tracing the development of the Trust argument, we examine 14 unpublished PhD proposals from 1948 in which Garfinkel formulated his approach through studies of Jewish identity that, with his earlier research on Race and subsequent studies of the ‘pre-medical candidate’ and transgender identity, demonstrate how inequality disrupts normal ordinary practices of sense and self-making. As a social theory, Garfinkel’s position builds on approaches to social action, interaction and language by Parsons, Schutz and Wittgenstein. As a systematic research programme, however, Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology charted new territory. Inspired by his own experiences as a Jewish man, he was the first to focus on how interactional troubles reveal the ‘hidden’ taken-for-granted details of how social objects and identities are cooperatively achieved in interaction and document how inequality interferes with that achievement.

show abstract

Getting Information Systems to Interact: The Social Fact Character of “Object” Clarity as a Factor in Designing Information Systems

Cited by 10 publications

References 26 publications

Till Data Do Us Part: Understanding Data-Based Value Creation in Data-Intensive Infrastructures

Till Data Do Us Part: Understanding Data-Based Value Creation in Data-Intensive Infrastructures

Ethnography in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis: Both, neither, or something else altogether?

The development of Garfinkel’s ‘Trust’ argument from 1947 to 1967: Demonstrating how inequality disrupts sense and self-making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About