Post

I am gentle about it in my blog post, but this kind of work has not really gained traction in industry HCI work. And this isn't to discredit the work in academic spaces, of course. But we need more academics to embed themselves in practitioner spaces so we can operationalize our theory.

Hah! Such a great question. I am being obtuse here, really. The reason "sociotechnical" as a term is helpful is typically because it opens the eyes of optimistic technology-builders to see and realize that their technologies (all technologies) are socially and culturally situated. (continued...)

Technology participates in, reinforces, and establishes social norms, laws, cultures, agendas, etc. Technology isn't neutral. "Sociotechnical" clarifies that the socio- part can't be separated from the -technical part. (See: Winner's classic "Do Artifacts have Politics?") (continued...)

Now. What did I mean by "explicitly" sociotechnical? I could have said that more clearly. What I am poking at is this longer thread of research and thinking on the critical, thoughtful side of things that almost exclusively focuses on the "socio-" part of sociotechnical. (continued...)

1 repost4 likes

In other words, I want the folks who recognize that "socio-" and "-technical" cannot be separated start actually building things. Too many papers make policy considerations, write guidelines, or imagine possibilities. I want to see real demonstrations and actual, working technologies. (continued...)

And this is why "Turkopticon" is a standout piece to me. It is a perfect example of a system that is explicitly aware of the social and political role it plays, but is also a real, practical, working system that is concretely demonstrative. It shows how it functions and makes real its ideas. (end)