The Social Life of Information

As I read this book, I realized I was again engaged in one form of what the authors refer to as "the social life of information": They shared their own ideas with me; I then correlated them with what my mind already possessed. One result was, that my curiosity about this complicated subject was stimulated to learn more about it even as, meanwhile, I now share information with those who read this review. There has been a "social life of information" since the first time one human being communicated with another. Over time, man has devised all manner of ways to overcome various barriers to effective communication (barriers which include distance and cost) with inventions such as the printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, and computer. Never before has there been more information available than there is now; moreover, never before has there been more and better ways by which to share it. In this volume, Brown and Duguid examine major technological achievements in terms of the gap between what each has contributed to society thus far, and, what each could yet contribute. Of special interest to me is the as yet unfulfilled potential of telecommunications convergence For example, consider my situation. Atop a large table in my study, I have a computer, a printer, a facsimile machine, a DSL modem, and an adjustable lamp as well as a cordless telephone housed within a unit which records messages. Beneath this same table, there are more than 200,000 wires and cables. In the living room nearby, I have a television set; on top of it, a VCR, a DVD player, and some kind of box which AT & T Broadband installed. We need to have four different remote control devices near at hand. Only my wife knows which one to use when. Behind the television set, approximately 53,000 wires and cables. Oh sure, if I wished to spend the money, I could have someone come in and achieve in both areas the convergence to which I referred. Having read this book, I now view the current communications situation as being anti-social while conceding that at least I do not need a separate television set for each channel I wish to view. Brown and Duguid know exactly what I am talking about. With uncommon precision as well as eloquence, they urge their reader to consider quite carefully what information is, how it can be exchanged, and why the nature and extent of that exchange are among the defining characteristics of any society. They observe, "Technology design often takes aim at the surface of life. There it undoubtedly scores lots of worthwhile hits. But such successes can make designers blind to the difficulty of more serious challenges--primarily the resourcefulness that helps embed certain ways of doing things deep in our lives." This is precisely what James O'Toole has in mind when, in Leading Change, he refers to what he calls "the ideology of comfort and the tyranny of custom." Those who share my high regard for this book are urged to check out Albert Borgmann

If you would like proof of the authors' thesis in the Social Life of Information, all you have to do is read all the reviews for the book. Take a moment and do that, then come back here...Finished? Any thoughts?Okay, here's their basic thesis: most interesting information is socially situated, socially constructed, or otherwise impossible to tear from its human roots and package into transferrable units of "knowledge". This has major implications for the viability of certain kinds of information systems, educational programs, and the evolution of an "information society". Yet, most information workers and information products appear to be oblivious to these implications.The proof? Ask yourself how you feel when you read a book review on-line. How do you feel when one review raves about the book and another review lambasts it? How do you feel when a reviewer gives you instructions that he expects you to follow, as I just gave? Do you follow them? What point is there to my asking "any thoughts?" when obviously you can't answer?You don't know me. You can't trust me. I'm not a part of your social system. The only way I can participate in your learning at all is if you see in these words something that touches you... and if so, that is little more than a happy coincidence: neither of us could have planned it.My point is that these reviews offer an illusion of a social system, but there's nothing much behind that illusion. It's cool write one, yes, in the way that scratching my name on a tree used to feel cool. But I find it very difficult to put these reviews to any practical use. I can't know who to trust. Isn't that how you feel, too? Consequently, these reviews are not capsules of knowledge pouring into your thirsty head. This review system is an example of the sort of shallow informationism that the authors complain about in their fascinating book.So why am I writing a review if I don't think it's likely that you'll find what I say useful? Well, I'm really writing to my students and colleagues, with each of whom I already have a connection. You know who you are. I teach software quality assurance and testing. This is a wonderful book that I recommend as a tool for making sense of how a process specialist's place in the social order influences his prospects for getting anything useful done.This book drove the final nail in the coffin of my hope that if I could only write a good enough process document, someone would follow the processes I prescribe. Now I know better. Not because Brown and Duguid say so (I don't know them, either) but because what they say rings so true to my *own* experience. People learn primarily by doing and experiencing in a system that includes other people. We are not merely information consumers. Process standardization, in the knowledge world, is therefore a fruitless or dangerous pursuit without considering the social context of practices.Thanks for reading. (why am I thanking you? I'm stuck in this illusion of online soc

If you are trying to assemble a comprehensive view of electronic marketing, this book contains critical pieces. Other than Moore's Law, few recent predictions have actually foretold events in this field. Alongside books about the possibilities of e-marketing--exploiting our ability to collect, sort and distribute information--this book highlights the limits of pure information, and points to contrary social forces. Especially for people with a layman's background in technology, I think this book is a must-read.

The book is an excellent study of the limitations of information technology and should be read especially by those technocrats who believe that any organizational problem can be solved by stuffing more and more information into a computer database. The authors remind us that these technologies should be tools, the means to an end ... but not the ends in themselves.Advances in technology have, in many ways, been wonderful. Taken to an extreme however, the mindless application of technology for the sake of technology does not nothing but reduce productivity and raise tension levels in organizations. The Authors rightly point out that information is best when it is the servant, enhancing the abilities of people rather than forcing them into narrow constraints.I would recommend this book highly to anyone who must deal with the increasing deluge of information in any organization. After all, any technology is best when it incorporates the humanity of its creators and users.

This is one of the few indispensible books of the new information age, one that tempers the misleading fantasies of cyberutopians and rebuffs those who fear technology. By putting technology into its social context, the authors clear away the tunnel vision of so many people involved in the development of new technologies. By bringing together case studies from Xerox and other companies, they show why some technologies catch on and others don't, why imposing technology on workers is counterproductive and how people use technology to reinforce their social webs. Far from undermining our social, human world, technology ends up bending to it. They show why the Internet will not destroy universities, cities, nations and other institutions in the way so many people predict. This is a lucid, well-written book, mercifully free from technobluster and dreary jargon. A really excellent read.