[CITASA] ***SPAM*** Re: Take two-Will the real sociology of technologies standup?

AP
Anthony Papargyris
Wed, Feb 4, 2009 1:23 PM

Hi all

I am a PhD candidate in Information Systems and I study the relation between (collective) memory constitution and technologies of virtuality. >From my point of view (that of a young researcher) questions like the one raise here are double-edged, in a sense that form one hand they seem to try to conceptually unite an a priori dichotomized field, and from the other hand they construct a comprehensive understanding of the technology-world relation.

With the fear to sound too naive, I have to say that to define/understand (at least hermeneutically) technology as an object is extremely difficult. It seems that even among the researchers of the IS community, the definition of technology (as a IT artifact) is elusive. Take for example the long discussions that begun after the Orlikowski and Iacono paper: Orlikowski, W., and Iacono, S. "Desperately Seeking the 'IT' in IT Research-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research (12:2), June 2001, pp. 121-134.

During my research I came face-to-face with a similar question. What should I consider as technology and technology of virtuality? I have come to the conclusion that technologies of virtuality can be treated with different . attitudes: as a 'technology' (i.e ICT), as an 'art' (i.e. a salient statue or an architectural construct), or as a 'metaphysical' structure (i.e. not-real worlds). These three 'attitudes' come with different worldviews, philosophies and research methodologies.

I decided to follow the phenomenological worldview and I found particular helpful the works of Don Ihde (Technology and the Lifeworld: >From Garden to Earth) as well as Heidegger's and Gadanmer's ideas technology and hermeneutics. Then form the sociological perspective, I found relevant the works of Alferd Schutz and Paul Ricoeur. Additional sources that had great impact were Bruno Latour's "Technology is Society Made Durable" (in J. Law's edited book A Sociology of Monsters) and the book by Bijker & Law (1994) "Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change".

Best regards

Anthony


Anthony Papargyris, MSc.
Research Officer, ISTLab/OIS
Department of Management Science and Technology
Athens University of Economics and Business
76 Patission St., GR104 34, Athens, GREECE
tel. +30 210 8203 755, fax. +30 210 8203 756,
mailto: apaparg@aueb.gr,
http://istlab.dmst.aueb.gr/content/members/m_apaparg.html
http://www.imagesofvirtuality.org

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG i www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1933 i Release Date: 02/03/09 17:48:00

Hi all I am a PhD candidate in Information Systems and I study the relation between (collective) memory constitution and technologies of virtuality. >From my point of view (that of a young researcher) questions like the one raise here are double-edged, in a sense that form one hand they seem to try to conceptually unite an a priori dichotomized field, and from the other hand they construct a comprehensive understanding of the technology-world relation. With the fear to sound too naive, I have to say that to define/understand (at least hermeneutically) technology as an object is extremely difficult. It seems that even among the researchers of the IS community, the definition of technology (as a IT artifact) is elusive. Take for example the long discussions that begun after the Orlikowski and Iacono paper: Orlikowski, W., and Iacono, S. "Desperately Seeking the 'IT' in IT Research-A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research (12:2), June 2001, pp. 121-134. During my research I came face-to-face with a similar question. What should I consider as technology and technology of virtuality? I have come to the conclusion that technologies of virtuality can be treated with different . attitudes: as a 'technology' (i.e ICT), as an 'art' (i.e. a salient statue or an architectural construct), or as a 'metaphysical' structure (i.e. not-real worlds). These three 'attitudes' come with different worldviews, philosophies and research methodologies. I decided to follow the phenomenological worldview and I found particular helpful the works of Don Ihde (Technology and the Lifeworld: >From Garden to Earth) as well as Heidegger's and Gadanmer's ideas technology and hermeneutics. Then form the sociological perspective, I found relevant the works of Alferd Schutz and Paul Ricoeur. Additional sources that had great impact were Bruno Latour's "Technology is Society Made Durable" (in J. Law's edited book A Sociology of Monsters) and the book by Bijker & Law (1994) "Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change". Best regards Anthony _______________ _ Anthony Papargyris, MSc. Research Officer, ISTLab/OIS Department of Management Science and Technology Athens University of Economics and Business 76 Patission St., GR104 34, Athens, GREECE tel. +30 210 8203 755, fax. +30 210 8203 756, mailto: apaparg@aueb.gr, http://istlab.dmst.aueb.gr/content/members/m_apaparg.html http://www.imagesofvirtuality.org No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG i www.avg.com Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1933 i Release Date: 02/03/09 17:48:00