The goal of the Phase II exam is to ensure that ICT students
are familiar with the major schools of thought and the work of a range of
significant contributors in the field of social informatics/ICT. It does not
constitute "everything you need to know," but rather provides an overview of
those perspectives that will allow students to critically engage with the
research literature. It is representative rather than exhaustive. The Phase II
exam is not intended to test students' familiarity with the readings, but
rather their ability to construct and develop arguments about the field of
social informatics/ICT; the readings are an introduction to the relevant
foundations for such arguments. Through familiarity with these scholars and
their writings, we expect you to be able to formulate coherent critiques and
analyses of topics in Informatics.
Ackerman, M. (2000). The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The Gap between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2-3), 179-203. [PDF]
Anderson, R. (1991). Representation and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 151-182. [PDF]
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., and Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the Individual Human Mind – Creating Shared Understanding through Collaborative Design. ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 84-113. [PDF]
Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108. [PDF]
Bowker, G. (1996). The History of Information Infrastructures: The Case of the International Classification of Diseases. Information Processing and Management, 32(1), 49-61. [PDF]
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1994). Borderline Issues: Social and Material Aspects of Design. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 3-36. [PDF]
Callon, M. (1996). Some Elements of a Sociology of
Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc
Bay. In Law (ed), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge. Reproduced in Mario Biagioli
(ed.),
The Science Studies Reader,
67-78. London: Routledge.
Cooper, G. and Bowers, J. (1995). Representing the User: Notes on the Disciplinary Rhetoric of HCI. In Thomas, P. (ed.), The Social and Interactional Dimensions of Human-Computer Interfaces. Cambridge University Press. [PDF]
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. [PDF]
Dourish, P. and Button, G. (1998). On Technomethodology: Foundational Relationships between Ethnomethodology and System Design. Human-Computer Interaction, 13(4), 395-432. [PDF]
Erickson, T. and Kellogg, W. (2000). Social Translucence: An
Approach to Designing Interfaces that Support Social Processes. ACM Trans.
Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 59-83.
Feldman, M. and March, J. (1981). Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171-186. [PDF]
Garfinkel, H. and Sacks. H. (1970). Formal Structures of Practical Action. in J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (Eds), Theoretical Sociology, New York: Appleton Century Crofts. [PDF]
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture. From The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books. [PDF]
Gerson, E. and Star, S.L. (1984). Analyzing Due Process in the Workplace. ACM Trans. Office Information Systems, 4(3), 257-270. [PDF]
Giddens, A. (1979). Agency, Structure. In Central Problems in Social Theory (ch2). [PDF]
Greenberg, S. and Marwood, D. (1994). Real-Time Groupware as
a Distributed System: Concurrency Control and its Effect on the Interface, Proc.
ACM Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW'94, 207-217.
Grudin, J. (1988). Why Groupware Applications Fail: Problems in the Design of Organizational Interfaces. Proc. ACM Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW'88, 85-93. [PDF]
Grudin, J. and Palen, L. (1995). Why Groupware Applications Succeed: Discretion or Mandate? Proc. European Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW'95 (Stockholm, Sweden). [PDF]
Heath, C. and Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and Control: Crisis Management and Multimedia Technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(1-2), 24-48. [PDF]
Hughes, J., Randall, D., and Shapiro, D. (1993). From Ethnographic Record to System Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(3), 123-142. [PDF]
Hutchins, E. (1995). How a Cockpit Remembers its Speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288. [PDF]
Ishii, H. and Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces Between People, Bits and Atoms. Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI'97, 234-241. [PDF]
Kensing, F. and Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 167-185. [PDF]
Kling, R., McKim, G., Fortuna, J. and King, A. (2000). Scientific Collaboratories as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks: A Theoretical Approach. American Conference on Information Systems. [PDF]
Kraut, R., Egido, C., and Galegher, J. (1990). Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaborations. In Galegher, Kraut & Egido (eds), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, 149-172. Lawrence Erlbaum. [PDF]
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In Bijker and Law (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society. MIT Press. [PDF]
Mark, G. (2002). Conventions and Commitments in Distributed Groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(3-4), 349-387. [PDF]
Mintzberg, H. (1992). Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design. Management Science, 26(3), 322-341. [PDF]
Nardi, B. (ed). (1996). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press. Chapters 1-5, 7. [PDF] [PDF] [PDF] [PDF] [PDF] [PDF]
Norman, D. (1990). The Psychology of Everyday Things. Doubleday. (aka. The Design of Everyday Things).
Olson, G. and Olson, J. (2000). Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2-3), 139-178. [PDF]
Orlikowski, W, and Robey, D. (1991). Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169. [PDF]
Patterson, J. (1991). Comparing the Programming Demands of Single-User and Multi-User Applications. Proc. ACM Symp. User Interface Software and Technology UIST'91, 87-94. [PDF]
Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E. (1987). The Social Construction
of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of
Technology Might benefit Each Other. In Bijker, Hughes & Pinch (eds.), The
Social Construction of Technological Systems:.
New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology,
17-50. MIT Press.
Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems (Fourth Edition). Prentice-Hall. Chapters 2-5. [PDF] [PDF] [PDF] [PDF]
Schoen, D. (1983). From Technical Rationality to Reflection-in-Action. From The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. (ch2) [PDF]
Shipman, F. and Marshall, C. (1999). Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations in Interactive Systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8 (4), 333-352. [PDF]
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional Ecology,
'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press.
Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, 265, 3, 94-110. [PDF]
Woolgar, S. (1988.) Opening the Black Box: Logic, Reason and Rules. From Science: The Very Idea. London: Routledge. [PDF]
Yates, J. and Orlikowski, W. (1992). Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299-326. [PDF]