Call for Papers on Computerization Movements

Professor Rob Kling was an important scholar in Social Informatics. Not only was he a visionary promoting the conceptualization of this new area (Kling, 1999, Kling and Allen, 1996), but a lead researcher as well. This workshop will honor this prolific, eclectic professor resulting in a collection of papers extending his work, highlighting Kling’s influence on the social informatics community and archiving his works as well.

Social Informatics refers to the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of information and communication technologies (ICTs) that takes into account their interaction with institutional and cultural contexts, including organizations and society (Kling et al., 2000). Social informatics researchers are especially interested in providing reliable knowledge about ICTs and social change, based on systematic empirical research with the purpose of informing public policy debates and professional practice as well as academic understanding. For example, social informatics research has resulted in a better understanding of the design, use, configuration, and/or consequences of ICTs such that they are more workable for people in organizations and society (Kling, 1999). Social informatics research also strives to understand new social phenomena that emerge as people use ICTs such as digital libraries, virtual teams, and virtual organizations.

One way Rob characterized these new phenomena was to view them as “computerization movements” (CMs) and to study their impact on societal and organizational change. CMs are defined as movements whose advocates focus on computer-based systems as instruments to bring about a new social order. A main alternative analysis of appropriate computerization is found in the ideologies of computerization counter-movements (CCMs) that oppose certain modes of computerization which their advocates view as bringing about an inappropriate social order.

In this workshop, we call for papers related to Rob Kling’s work in computerization movements (Kling, 1991; Kling and Iacono, 1988; Kling and Iacono, 1996; Iacono and Kling, 2001). We strive to strengthen the research in this area because it was Rob’s desire to promote this research stream. We also feel that it is very relevant today as new CMs seem to appear with each new technology.

Rob contributed to the study of CMs by identifying global mobilizing ideologies that local advocates may employ when developing approaches to computerization in society or in an organization. For example, he distinguished between a general computerization movement in society in which activists proclaim “revolutionary” social changes and specific CMs focused on specific technologies. Rob compared five specific CMs--urban information systems, artificial intelligence, computer-based education, office automation, and personal computing--and identified five shared ideological beliefs:

1. Computer-based technologies are central to a reformed world.
2. The improvement of computer-based technologies will help reform society.
3. No one loses from computerization.
4. More computing is better than less, and there are no conceptual limits to the scope of appropriate computerization.
5. Perverse or undisciplined people are the main barriers to social reform through computing (Kling and Iacono, 1988).
   

He also called for more research in examining particular CMs:

“We need to learn in more detail about their participants and social organization and to better understand their relations with computerizing organizations, interest groups, the media, other CMs and different segments of the computer industry. We hope that this analysis will encourage scholars to examine the critical role in specific social settings and the activists who push them. These activists play a critical role in setting expectations about what a particular mode of computing is good for, how it can be organized, and how costly or difficult it will be to implement. These expectations can shape participants attempts to computerize in a specific social setting such as a school, public agency, hospital or business (Kling and Iacono, 1988, p. 239).”

Rob’s analysis of CMs has focused on certain processes and outcomes: (1) ways in which movements persist over time through CM organizations, (2) ways in which CMs recruit participants, (3) the extent to which CMs succeed or fail in displacing established structures, processes and actors, and (4) the extent to which the success or failure of CMs is due to collective activities that take place both inside and outside the computerizing organizations or society. In addition, his analysis has used technological utopianism and anti-utopianism to frame and interpret large-scale computerization projects and what they mean to people using them. These visions promote support for, or rejection of specific technologies as seen in the analyses of computer-based education, computer networking, and distributed work (Iacono and Kling, 1996; Iacono and Kling, 2001).

Computerization movements are still very much in vogue and are even being promoted by the federal government in their e-government and e-democracy campaigns. However, there is a dearth of studies in how CMs form, how they mobilize support for computerization of specific technologies, how the Internet has influenced the creation and persistence of particular CMs, and whether or not a particular CM has succeeded or failed. As Internet use becomes more widespread, CMs form around the assumption that access is ubiquitous to the general public. For example, Elliott and Scacchi (2004) conducted a study of the mobilizing influence of the free software movement on the formation and persistence of virtual communities whose purpose is to design and develop free software for businesses and the general public. In these free software development communities, contributors work without pay to develop free software using Internet relay chat and mailing lists to communicate globally 24 hours of the day. More research is needed to understand these new genres of CMs.

As a tribute to Professor Rob Kling’s groundbreaking research on CMs and in an effort to further this research, we request workshop participants to submit papers in the following formats focusing on research related to existing CMs and/or CCMs, or to the future of social informatics:

• Conceptual papers – Definition, conceptualization and theory development of computerization movements.
• Survey papers – Historical analysis of Kling’s research on CMs, survey of research about a particular CM, or survey of a set of CMs with comparison of similarities and differences between CMs.
• Case studies of the influence of a specific CM on one or more organizations or segments of society.
• Analysis of genres of CMs looking for intragroup influences.
• Criteria for judging success or failure of a particular CM. Not all movements are successful. Success has been variously defined as social acceptance, accrual of new advantages, creation of new social acceptance, the creation of new social policies, or the implementation of new laws (Gamson, 1975). Others argue that the most important outcome of a social movement is a shift in public perception. What guidelines can researchers use to analyze a CM in terms of success or failure?
• Analysis of how a particular CM formed (activists, organizational support, public discourses, etc.), and whether or not a CCM formed as well
• Analysis of the success or failure of CMs and reasons for the success or failure in a particular type of organization or in general society.
• Utopian and anti-utopian analyses of the mobilization of particular CMs.
• Future predictions of a specific CMs influence on organizations, and/or society in general.
• Analysis of social informatics as a CM and/or the future of the movement.
• Policy papers. Analysis of the policy impact and/or implications of CMs or of CM research.

CMs to be addressed in the papers include but are not limited to:

• AI, expert systems, multiagent systems
• Office computerization, email, instant messaging
• Personal computing
• Computer-based education
• Urban information systems
• Paperless courts
• Virtual communities
• Knowledge management
• Communities of practice
• Virtual reality
• Virtual organizations
• Digital libraries
• Distributed work
• Internetworking
• Free software, open source
• Online gaming
• E-government
• E-business
• E-democracy
• Software productivity
• E-health, medical informatics
• Personal digital assistants
• Network centric warfare/digital weapons
• Interactive television
• Supercomputing
• Cybersecurity/cybertrust
• Surveillance technologies
• Context-aware computing
• Ubiquitous computing
• Human-robot-agent interactive technologies
• Information privacy
• Sensor networks
• Cyberinfrastructure
• E-science