🚀 go-pugleaf

 Dear Simon,

 Thanks for your note. As I said, I read your article as AMBIVALENT about
 the value of social theory/social analysis.

 You've identified some of the observations in   "Groupware: Some Issues and
 Experiences."< CACM 34(1)(Jan 1991):38-58> which support the value of
 social theory/social analysis. And there are others. On page 55 you note:
 "the system and the group are intimately interacting entities (p. 55)."
 The role of social theory is limited, at best, in the conception offered in
 your paper. On page 45, you treat "social theory" as   sociology applied to
 design. This ignores the importance of "impacts studies" which would help
 potential adopters and users, as well as designers, understand the virtues
 and problematics of CSCW in use. For a comprehensive review of some of this
 literature, see "Technology and Groups: Assessments of Empirical Research"
 Kenneth L. Kraemer and Allain Pinsonneault. Chapter 14, Intellectual
 Teamwork. <Jolene Galegher, Robert Kraut, and Carmen Egido (Ed.) Erlbaum,
 1990.>

 But I also see important elements in your paper which consistently question
 the value of social ANALYSIS. For example, you discuss 2 systems influenced
 by social theories, Quilt and Coordinator. And you simply observe that
 these systems make make additional & perhaps burdensome demands on users.
 <That's all folks!> I am *not* a fan of Coordinator. It is based on speech
 act theory, a philosophical theory of communication. There is **no** sound
 organizational sociology in speech act theory. You may believe that social
 theory/social analysis can can constructively inform CSCW designs. But the
 way you and your coauthors wrote these passages doesn't give the reader
 examples or ideas to illustrate your claims. Your passing examples
 undermine the value of having sound social analysis inform CSCW designs..

 In another passage, you write that "social protocols" allow a system to be
 more adaptive to a group's preferences. You quickly qualify this
 observation by noting that social protocols (e.g., leaders sets agenda and
 sums up a meeting) can be unfair. What is left unsaid that it is
 technologically **impossible* and *unlikely* that one would build unfair
 technical protocols. (grin). I read this passage as indicating how
 technology is necessarily "good" and "the social" may be bad.

 I realize that you may not have intended these interpretations. For my CSCW
 seminar I carefully read your paper for your approach to social aspects of
 CSCW. I found that you clearly treated CSCW as embedded in groups and said
 some priaseworthy general things about the value of social analysis. But
 you examples tended to undermine your general claims. Perhaps unintended.
 But now you're in print with 75,000 copies of that CACM issue circulating
 worldwide.

 Best wishes,

 Rob Kling