Re: Summary and review of ``Reading All About Computerization''

Thread View: comp.groupware

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by Rob Kling Mon, 17 Jun 1991 00:40

#567

Author: Rob Kling
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 00:40

33 lines
1771 bytes

Paul,

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, your comments FUNDAMENTALLY miss
the main point of the paper, as I see it.  Your comments are
consistent with the paper, but really ignore the issue of genres,
genre conventions & the limitations of the conventions.

I believe that the (anti)utopoian genres offer interesting
kinds of insights, but they are mislead in important ways,
in the same sense that the combination of romantic comedy
& tragedy have much to teach us, but also ... by their conventions...
leave out a great deal that is important about "daily life."
For example, there is little negiotiation and accomodation in
romantic comedy or tragedy ... an absense that helps heighten
the intensity of comic situations of tragic confrontations.

Similarly, the utopian and anti-utopian genres ignore important
elments of day to day compterization (eg., mediocre training,
annoying system bugs) that can shape system use patterns and
resultant social consequences. On the other hand,
the utopian genres are literatures of possibility: they can inspire
or apall us  and  dramatize hopes and fears in  ways that
go well beyond the dramas of "la vie quotidien."

If you read my paper carefully,
then I have not done a sufficient job of making
these ideas about genre conventions clear.
I appreciate your taking time to send me your comments.
I will reread the paper to make sure that my key
ideas do stand out.

/Rob

Re: Summary and review of ``Reading All About Computerization''

#568

Author: Paul Eggert
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 01:34

25 lines
1799 bytes

Perhaps my review was too terse.  Partly this was because the paper was
misplaced in comp.groupware.  But even on its own terms, the paper is weak.
E.g.:

   Its whole idea of genres is overblown: for people trying to
   understand computerization issues, knowing the ``genre'' of a
   computerization book is like knowing the color of its cover --
   useful at times but quite secondary, really.

   Even assuming the idea of genres is important, why is the paper's
   classification better than any of the half dozen others that come
   to mind?

   Even assuming the paper's classification is worthy, everybody knows
   that writers have axes to grind; adult readers are used to taking
   writers' motivations into account.  Saying ``Look at the genres!''
   tells readers nothing they do not already know.

   Even assuming the paper's main point is novel, the paper does not
   justify its conclusion that social theorists and the like write
   ``discourses whose claims as valid knowledge are strongest'' and
   that only their jargon and abstruseness prevent wider acceptance.
   From the little evidence given in the paper, one might just as
   easily conclude that social theorists of computerization are ignored
   because they cannot predict their way out of a paper bag.

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads