Social informatics: concepts, applications, and research directions

Social informatics, or the collection of research that examines the social and cultural aspects of information technology, is a relatively recent field. From its conception in the early 1970's as an unnamed field of research to its current discussions in popular computer science and social science, the concepts behind social informatics have been widely examined, utilized, and commonly misunderstood (Kling, 1999). Although the field is one of great usefulness and interest, it does not constitute an integrated or organized approach for discussions of information technology integration into organizations. This paper will discuss the contributions of the field in general, and will show that the usefulness of the discoveries made from the research does not, by its self, make it the prime approach for integration discussions.

There can be no question that the research in this field has been substantial. According to Kling (1999), the topic has been one of interest since the late 1970's. In its early phases, research was solely examined in organizational settings, since organizations were the primary place of information systems. While the field has expanded to include personal information systems, the bulk of research still lies in the companies and organizations around the world (Kling, 1999).

However, the research completed on social informatics has, to some extent, been unorganized, at best. Rather than typical social research, conducted in labs with specific subjects randomized for validity, with clear hypotheses and null hypotheses, social informatics research was often conducted in live business organizations, with hypotheses that were difficult to measure. For example, Kling (1999) notes that hypotheses were formed such as "Will computer systems...improve or degrade the quality of work?." Such questions, while important, hardly constitute organized research, in that the hypothesis is too broad to truly determine significance.

The results of such research showed clearly that the hypotheses being tested were not such that could decisively conclude a relevant significance. For example, Attewell and his colleagues found that the extent to which information technology influenced an organization was highly dependant upon the workers themselves. Higher skilled, more powerful workers tended to exhibit more rapid change in relation to performance using information technology than those individuals with less power (Attewell, 1987). Thus, it is apparent that more was at work within these studies than the dependant variable alone, so the results are difficult to analyze.

Another indication that social informatics research is highly flawed is the extent to which results vary. Kling (1999) notes that while some researchers found that information technology led to centralization, others actually found it led to decentralization. King (1983) found that this type of discrepancy was due to the fact that the underlying question had far more to do with the control and politics of an organization that the implementation of information technology.

Another study which focuses on the drastic differences in research outcome is discussed by Kling (2001) in the analysis of how oversimplification of the effects of social informatics can have negative consequences for organizations. Kling notes that the introduction of credit card machines and automated tellers would allow travelers wider access to money when traveling. However, due to this oversimplified, unorganized view, credit card issuers in the United States were able to market their product to a wider variety of consumers, some of which were unable to pay the debt they amassed. This caused a higher number of bankruptcies, and a difficulty in regulating interest rate changes (Kling, 2001).

Aside from the unorganized way in which research is conducted in this field, it is apparent that those within the field also differ greatly in their views of social informatics, thus creating a non-integrated type of research field. Kling (1999) notes that social informatics in a scattered field of research. While hints of the studies present themselves in journals of social sciences, computer sciences, information sciences, and it professional magazines, these sources are varied in their style, presentation, and comprehension of the research behind social informatics (Kling, 1999). This in and of its self makes it far more difficult to integrate the vast amount of research into a single concept under a single field.

Furthermore, as Kling notes (2001), there are no research conferences or research journals dealing solely with the topic of social informatics. While there are certainly subsets of other conferences dedicated to the concepts, such as the annual Association of Internet Research conference, and parts of journals such as Wired and the Information Society, there is no single source of research information (Kling, 2001). While this may certainly be due to the broad range of applications for the field, it does mean that integration of ideas becomes far more difficult. Without a central point of information, individuals within the field will have a more difficult time integrating the wide variety of concepts into one central theme of ideas.

Even the vocabulary used to discuss social informatics varies greatly. While some discuss system integration in terms of standardization and interchangeability (Kling, 2001), others discuss the research in terms of "social analysis," "information systems research," and "behavioral information research" (Kling, 1999). These terms are broad enough to confuse even the specialists who work daily in the field. This difference in terminology is one reason for the coining of the term "social informatics," which allowed those interested in the field to have a common term (Kling, 2001).

However, while the early years of social informatics research was certainly not the most organized and integrated research, and while the field still needs some advancements in the pooling of information, the quality research provided by the specialists in the field is certainly useful information. For example, Orlikowski (1993) conducted research in the field of consulting firms and their use of computerized documentary systems. This research clearly discusses an analytical approach to social informatics research. In the study, the researchers use the program Lotus Notes to test how the workers would use the product to interact on a national, team level. For the computer technicians, who rely constantly on it products, Lotus Notes assisted them in sharing information with other co-workers. Additionally, the tax consultants used Lotus Notes extensively to deliver information about tax advisories. However, the line consultants, whom the managers believed would use the product most often, were the least likely to use the product. They were uninterested, easily frustrated, and more like to give up (Orlikowski, 1993).

According to Kling (2001), this type of research shows how social informatics is useful in discussions of technology implementations. He notes that the research shows an obvious difference in how these individuals used technology in the organization. Kling continues to explain that the reasoning could be increased technological ability on the part of the technicians, making it easier for them to use the new software. Additionally, the accountants, who worked in Washington, had a certain need to show their willingness to succeed in the future of the company. The line consultants, however, were put through a vigorous probationary period, and over half were fired on their first review. Further, the line consultants were paid by the hour, and there was no time provided to learn the new system. This meant, according to Kling (2001), that the users would have either had to learn on their own time or find a client willing to pay them as they learned.