🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your note. It is virtually impossible to respond
substantively to comments which simply  criticize a piece of work
without any clear reference point. I agree with you that *you*
don't see the point of the paper (and the virtue of knowing
about the genre of specific social analyses of computerization).
But aside from slightly slanderous
comments, you don't give readers (or me) any evidence,
let alone serious evidence,  for your haughty opinions.

I am very curious to know which "half dozen other"
classification schemes you actually find much more useful,
and specificlly in what ways and why.

I believe that "Reading 'All About' Computerization
is highly relevent to people interested in
CSCW/groupware, partly because of its general argument and partly
because of the examples. Some of these cover certain kinds of
groupware (group calendars), but themes are much more general.

The point of knowing the genre of a book or article is that of being more able
to readily identify key potential strengths and blindspots in a style
of analysis. Further, for people who are trying to organize bodies
of literature for courses, reading lists, literature suvreys, etc.,
genres provide one way of appreciating which epistemological
(in constrast with topical) bases they have covered. These are not the
only uses, but they are important ones for which a classification scheme
about the kinds of insight and blind spots a style of analysis
about computerization can be useful.

In my view, a large fraction of the literature about computerization has
important technologically utopian themes which readers  often do not
recognize ... for the kinds of hopes they inspire and themes which they ignore.
The issues are important. I've recently been reading parts of the literature on
telecommuting in prpeartion for a plenary talk at a conference on
telecommuting as a way of reducing energy use and traffic congestion
in major urban areas. The literaure has lots of themes. But one important
issue that drives some analyses is the belief that "telcommuting will
really take off" when some specific enabling technologies are better developed
(e.g., teleconferencing) or widepread (e.g., ISDN).  I think that much hinges
on  arguments of this kind, and (unfortunately) many of them are cast within
the limitations of technologicaly utopian arguments. I'm a fan of telecommuting;
but see real problems with this style of argument dominating the
technological analyses in the telecommuting literature.
This is just one example.

I encourage people who are scanning this debate to read "Reading 'All About'
Computerization"  for themeselves, and to suggest serious alternative
analytical vantage points if they find the paper unconvincing.

Rob Kling