NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20 / NN_1992_20.iso / spool / comp / edu / 1583 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-08 | 28.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!ucivax!gateway From: kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) Subject: Re: Paradigms of Computer Science (was: Are computer "scientists" really scientists? (was: Are programmers Computer Scientists?)) Message-ID: <9209082104.aa07284@q2.ics.uci.edu> In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 08 Sep 92 04:51:56 +0000. <1992Sep8.045156.6935@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Newsgroups: comp.edu Lines: 578 Date: 9 Sep 92 04:04:42 GMT Hi .. I agree with your observation ... the distinction between usability and computability as distinct traditions in CS is pretty fundamental ... This is a paper which explores that distinction. /Rob Kling ---------------- USABILITY VERSUS COMPUTABILITY: SOCIAL ANALYSES BY COMPUTER SCIENTISTS Rob Kling Department of Information and Computer Science University of California - Irvine Irvine, Ca 92717 714-856-5955 email:kling@ics.uci.edu Based on a presentation at IFIP'89 -- San Francisco, CA (August 1989) Draft 4C-2 -- August 1991 INTRODUCTION Computer specialists' views of the relationship of the social order in which they live and work to computerization are very important. They permeate professional discussions about what should be computerized, which parties' interests merit attention, how computerization should proceed, what will be the consequences -- good and bad -- of different approaches. Computer specialists do not agree on these matters. In fact, they hold several different views of the relationship of the social order to computerization. Computer scientists are one important group of computer specialists. They have a specially important role in developing advanced computer technologies, in educating a large fraction of computer specialists in universities, and in acting as spokespeople about computing matters within elite scientific circles. Their perspectives shape curricula and public discourse about what should be computerized and how. I will briefly sketch five perspectives about the relationship of society to computerization which are held by computer scientists. USABILITY VERSUS COMPUTABILITY The main topic of this paper is a characterization of five different perspectives which computer specialists hold about the relationship of the social order in which they live and work to computerization. These perspectives differ in a key dimension that underlies many key debates about the nature of computer science research and education -- computability versus usability. The computability tradition in computer science examines the capabilities and efficiencies of computer-based systems in mathematical terms. The theories of computation anchored in automata theory and theories of algorithmic complexity are the cornerstones of this tradition. In contrast, the usability tradition is concerned with understanding and developing computer-based systems which gracefully fit into and support (or transform) human activity in various social settings. This line of inquiry is represented in computer science by human factors studies of computer systems, concerns for reducing the social risks of computer-based systems, etc. The primary underlying theories derive from the social sciences rather than from mathematics. This dimension -- computability versus usability -- does not absorb all lines of research and teaching in computer science. Nor is it intended to. Studies of novel computer architectures, programming environments, and artificial intelligence, for example, sometimes emphasize neither computability nor usability criteria. But they are often focussed on developing novel technologies which expand the range of activities that can be readily done with computer-based systems. In practice, effective computer-based systems should be very usable, although we have many examples of clumsy technologies which are widely used (e.g., the vi editor in Unix, programming languages such as COBOL, FORTRAN, and C, DBASE III, etc.). Since people like responsive systems, the speed of interaction is one critical dimension that facilitates the usability of computer- based systems. For highly interactive tasks, like text editing and conducting computer-based searches, swift response times can make a system a pleasure to use. Very usable systems often rely on fast algorithms for searching, sorting, managing screens, etc. But people also relish other features of interfaces which are not amenable to mathematical analysis such as coherent command sets, harmonious colorful displays, and readily intelligible output (Shneiderman, 1980; Shneiderman, 1987). FIVE PERSPECTIVES I've developed this set of five perspectives informally. It is not the result of systematic reading of a specific body of literature or an empirical analysis of beliefs held by a particular group of computer specialists. Even so, I have some confidence that these perspectives characterize important assumptions and beliefs of many computer specialists. But the list and characterizations should be read as provisional. I have ordered these five perspectives by the richness of their views of the social order -- from simplest to most complex. Perspective #1: Computing is a mathematical and engineering venture with no deep social content One commonplace view of computer science and engineering is reflected in a recent report by the ACM Task Force on the Core of Computer Science. (Denning, et. al., 1989). Computer Science and Engineering is the systematic study of algorithmic processes -- their theory, analysis, design, efficiency, implementation and application -- that describe and transform information. The fundamental question underlying all of computing is, What can be (efficiently) automated? .... The roots of computing extend deeply into mathematics and engineering. Mathematics imparts analysis to the field; engineering imparts design (Denning, et. al. 1989). In this view, computer science focusses primarily upon algorithms rather than systems that anyone would actually use. It has no explicit social content. The report suggests an interest in implementations and applications -- and consequently the usability of computer-based systems through its focus on "engineering" as well as mathematics. But the only legitimate analytical approaches are mathematical and hence, a-social. The ACM Task Force's report is not completely consistent. For example, it suggests that courses be offered in human-factors studies without acknowledging that psychology (and perhaps physiology), rather than mathematics, provide the analytical underpinnings of these inquiries. This view of computing is very commonplace among academic computer scientists in the U.S., especially those with a mathematical orientation. It shapes most computer science curricula so that they ignore the social dimensions of computerization. Consequently, tens of thousands of college students graduate as computer science majors annually in the US. without understanding the social assumptions about design or development that they will make as practitioners. The expansion of computing (and Computer Science) has depended upon the improved usability of computer based systems base, not simply their efficiency. The "micro revolution," for example, has placed tens of millions of computers and terminals on the desks of many managers, professionals and clerks in industrial countries. Networking has made electronic mail accessible to millions of managers and professionals. Whatever theories help explain the expansion of computing applications, which ones work well or badly (and in what terms), they are not fundamentally mathematical studies of algorithms or systems optimization. This perspective contributes important insights to "computing in the laboratory." But it cannot readily help computer specialists understand who computerizes, what it takes to computerize effectively, and the consequences of different computerization strategies in the larger world. Perspective #2: Societies are Customers for a Cavalcade of Improved Technical Products Many computer specialists expect continuous technological progress. They focus on the improvements in discrete technological innovations - whether they are novel technologies, such as optical disks or hypertext, or incremental improvements in more mature technologies such as databases. This sensibility is reflected in many technical and trade journals. It is visible through special issues and articles devoted to the nuances of a specific new technology without corresponding articles devoted to examining the social meanings of these technologies, the ways they are likely to be used, the social choices involved, etc.. This perspective is somewhat similar to Perspective #1 in focussing on discrete artifacts. But its approach to evaluation may include human factors and other psychological criteria for refined systems engineering. While specialists of this persuasion are often keenly aware of the applications of computing technologies, they do not publish coherent analyses of how they add up in concrete settings. To take a simple example, a popular technically-oriented North American microcomputing journal, Byte Magazine, publishes hundreds of notes and articles each year about a variety of new products and computing techniques. Each product is treated in isolation, and in a way that encourages Byte's readers to desire better technologies. These technologies are anchored in diverse vendor worlds -- IBM, Apple, Atari, Sun, etc. But the best technologies from each of these vendor worlds do not necessarily add up into a well integrated and affordable computing world. However, Byte's editors and writers do not examine how participants in actual organizations work with and try to integrate diverse technologies of varying age into workable computing milieus. Perspective #3: Computerization Can and Should Revolutionize Societies Many organizations are adopting computing equipment much more rapidly than they understand how to organize positive forms of social life around it. However, some fervent advocates of computerization see the actual pace of computerization in schools, offices, factories, and homes slower than they wish. These "computer revolutionaries" argue that many key institutions -- such as schools, businesses, family life, public agencies -- can be progressively reformed through the appropriate application of computer-based systems. Computer revolutionaries make five key assumptions: (a) Computer- based technologies are central for a reformed world; (b) Improved computer-based technologies can further reform society (c) No one loses from computerization; (d) More computing is better than less, and there are no conceptual limits to the scope of appropriate computerization; and (e) Perverse or undisciplined people are the main barriers to social reform through computing (Kling and Iacono, 1988). Computer revolutionaries see computer technologies as essential instruments for solving important and previously intractable social problems (Feigenbaum and McCorduck, 1984; Papert, 1980; Yourdon, 1986). But they underplay the ways in which the forms of computerization which they advocate can also create significant problems. Computer revolutionaries rely on an "undersocialized" conceptual scheme which isolates computer use from key elements of social life and ignores the details of computerization processes. They help inspire readers to trust in a "computer revolution" made by acquiring and using computer equipment under commonplace social conditions. It is too facile to simply characterize computer revolutionaries as "optimistic." But they evaluate computer based systems stripped out of the particular contexts in which people live with them. The computer revolutionary discussions exaggerate the social power of new computer technologies and their use by simplifying the social conditions which make them attractive to some participants, and the complexities and sluggishness of institutional change. Computerization is a complex set of social practices, not just the use of a computer system. Different computerization strategies may better serve different social interests and have different social consequences. The limits to computerization may be set by a powerful array of institutionalized social practices. Computer revolutionaries usually ignore these important aspects of computerization because they compromise the innocence, power, and purity of new technologies and their advocates (Kling and Iacono, 1991). The questions that underlie the claims of computer revolutionaries are interesting and important. But I haven't found good answers framed in the rhetoric of "computer revolution." The best answers come from close empirical observation of computer systems in use which suggests the real possibilities, limitations, paradoxes and ironies of computerization situated in identifiable social settings (see for example, Kling, 1987; Kling, 1992). Perspective #4: Professional Responsibility to Society is Essential. Some computer specialists are specially concerned that computing technologies should be "sound products." In this view the computing professions should be responsible to their clients by delivering practical systems which are usable, reliable, and safe. The main foci of attention have been to identify computer systems which can be major threats to physical safety or civil life and to identify discrete solutions to reduce these risks. Some forms of computer technologies can be harmful because of unreliable software (e.g., life-critical information systems; election counting systems; social security payments; fly-by-wire aircraft; military command and control systems.). Other kinds of computer based systems threaten to diminish personal privacy. Both kinds of threats have been the subject of a specialized topical literature, the concern of organizations like Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and special forums, like the ACM sponsored "Risks" computer bulletin board. In this perspective the primary reforms will come through improved software quality and certain changes in organizational practices (e.g., privacy protections; administrative guidelines to insure safe software and data handling practices). Perspective #5: Computerization is a Fundamentally Social Process Computerization is a fundamentally social process for designing and deploying technologies in social settings. A starting point to appreciate this perspective is the observation that the development and use of the vast majority of computer-based systems is inherently social. Advancing the argument that some technology should be developed or adopted are social acts which usually make claims about how that technology will alter the lives of people who use technologies or others in their orbit (e.g., their clients, family members). Designers and developers make important choices in identifying preferences ("requirements") for systems, setting priorities, and in convincing people and organizations to alter their practices when they adopt new technologies. Some aspects of computer systems design are a form of social design, for many of the same reasons that the design of buildings and streets is a kind of social design, rather than only applied engineering or abstract artistic work with steel, concrete, and glass. The design choices open some social opportunities and close off others -- thereby shaping social life. The dominant explicit paradigms in academic computer science focus on computability, rather than usability (Perspective #1). They do not help technical professionals comprehend the social complexities of computerization. For example, the recent ACM Task Force on the Core of Computer Science quoted above claims that all the analyses of computer science are mathematical. We find this view much too narrow-minded to be helpful, and in fact it does not withstand much scrutiny. The lines of inquiry where it might hold are those where mathematics can impart all the necessary analysis. But there are whole subfields of computer science -- such as artificial intelligence, computer-human interaction, social impacts studies, and parts of software -- where mathematics cannot impart all the all the necessary analysis. The social sciences provide a complementary theoretical base for studies of computing which examine or make assumptions about human behavior. In the classic Turing machine model of computability, there is no significant difference between a modest microcomputer like an Apple Macintosh SE and a supercomputer like a Cray YMP. Of course, these two machines differ substantially in their computational speed and memory. But the Mac SE, with software designed to match its graphical interface, is a much more usable computer for many small-scale tasks such as writing memos and papers, graphing data sets of 500 data points, etc. Unfortunately, the computability paradigm doesn't help us understand a Mac's relative advantage over a Cray for tasks where the ease of a person's interacting with software, rather than sheer CPU speed or file size, is the critical issue. This contrast between Macs and Crays is a small-scale machine- centered example. More significant examples can found whenever one is trying to ask questions like: What should be computerized for these particular people; How should computerization proceed; Who should control system specifications, data, etc.? These are "usability" questions on a social scale. Paradigms that focus on the nature of social interaction provide much better insights for designing computer systems in support of group work than does the computability paradigm (Ehn, 1988; Ehn, 1989; Kling, 1989; Winograd, 1988). Mathematical analyses help us learn about the properties of computer systems abstracted from any particular use, such as the potential efficiency of an algorithm or the extent to which computers can completely solve certain problems in principle (e.g., the question of undecidability). As long as a computer scientist doesn't make claims about the value of any kind of computer use, mathematical analyses might be adequate. But most computer scientists do make professional claims about how people and organizations should computerize, although often informally as members of committees and consultants. In fact, they often recommend technologies which are either easy to use or which represent some kind of technological advance (e.g., teaching programming in Pascal, Ada, or C++ rather than Basic). The advances in computer interface design which led to the Mac, and other graphical user interfaces, rested on psychological insights, rather than mathematical insights. Similarly, advances in programming languages, software development tools, and data- base systems have come, in part, through analyses of what makes technologies easier for people and organizations to use. While some of these technologies have a mathematical base, their fundamental justifications have been psychological and social. Claims about how groups of people should use computers are social and value-laden claims. For example, suppose a computer scientist argues that organizations should computerize by developing networks of highperformance workstations, with one on every employee's desk. This claim embodies key assumptions about good organizational strategies, and implicitly rules out alternatives DD such as having a large central computer connected to employees' terminals, with a few microcomputers also available for those who prefer to use micro-oriented software. These two alternative architectures for organizational computing raise important social and political questions: Who will get access to what kinds of information and software? What skill levels will be required to use the systems? How much money should be spent on each worker's computing support? How should resources and status be divided within the organization? Who should control different aspects of computerization projects? And so on. The question here is one of social and political organization, in addition to computer organization. Many computer scientists are keenly interested in having advanced computer-based systems widely used, not just studied as mathematical objects. These hopes and related claims rest on social analyses and theories of social behavior. Mathematical frames of reference lead analysts to focus on behavior that can be formalized and "optimal arrangements." Concerns for optimality make most sense when the objective functions of a group are known, and are consistent. Social analyses usually help analysts identify the ways that different participants in a computerization project may have different preferences for the way that computing technologies are woven into social arrangements. Their "objective functions" may differ, and even be incompatible, to the extent that people know what they are. Participants are most likely to have different preferences when computerization projects are socially complex and a project cuts across key social boundaries -- identified by characteristics such as roles, occupational identity, reward structures, culture, or ethnicity. We do not see social analyses as panaceas. But they help identify the kinds of opportunities and dilemmas participants will actually experience and respond to in their daily lives. CONCLUSION I have briefly sketched five perspectives about the role of social analysis in understanding key issues of computerization. They range from Perspective #1 which emphasizes computability to Perspective #5 which views computerization as an inherently social venture. The computability perspective appears to be the most "scientific" and "elegant" because it focuses on mathematical analysis and a laboratory conception of engineering design. It helps give computer scientists prestige by identifying their analyses with mathematics ("queen of the sciences"). Unfortunately, it is impotent in understanding many key aspects of computerization in the world -- even basic questions, such as what really makes computer-based systems effective, why computer- based systems of different kinds have been adopted by different kinds of organizations, and what have been the consequences of their implementation. The other four perspectives acknowledge that social choices play a key role in understanding the value and problems of different approaches to computerization. Perspective #2 (societies are customers for a cavalcade of improved technical products) captures much of the excitement of computerization, but ignores most of the key social choices and dilemmas. Not every solution can come in a cardboard box or shrink-wrapped package. Perspective #3 (computerization can and should revolutionize societies) places computerization on a large and dramatic social stage. The key dilemma is that computer revolutionaries tend to fetishize equipment (like Perspective #2), to overestimate the rate at which computer-based systems can act as catalysts for social change, to ignore the extent to which key social choices are linked to different forms of computerization, and to ignore the potential problems of large scale, intensive computerization. Perspective #4 focuses on identifying and minimizing the socially harmful effects of specific kinds of computer-based systems. Perspective #1 is socially isolated and non-responsible and Perspective #2 is producer-oriented. Perspective #4 counterbalances these by being consumer oriented, socially responsible, and focused on tractable problems. Perspective #5 goes beyond Perspective #4 by promising an analytical approach to understanding the opportunities, choices, and dilemmas of computerization. It relies on the social sciences rather than mathematics for its analytical underpinnings. The education of hundreds of thousands of computer science students has been shaped by Perspective #1. They leave academic computer science programs with some skills in designing software systems and programming them. They usually take courses in data structures and algorithms in which they learn to appreciate and carry out mathematical analyses of computer performance. But they leave systematically ignorant of the ways in which social analyses of computer systems provide comparably important insights into the effectiveness of computing in the world. Many segments of the computing community would much better understand computerization and be able to play more responsible professional roles by adopting a more fundamentally social view of the process. REFERENCES Denning, Peter J. et. al. 1989 Computing as a Discipline. CACM 31(1)(January 1989):9-- 23. Dunlop, Charles & Kling, Rob (eds.). 1991 Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Boston, Ma. Academic Press, Boston. Ehn, Pelle. 1988 Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Stockholm, Arbetslivcentrum. Ehn, Pelle. 1989 The Art and Science of Designing Computer Artifacts." Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1 (August), pp. 21-42. Reprinted in Dunlop, Charles & Kling, Rob (eds.). 1991 Feigenbaum, Edward and Pamela McCorduck 1984 Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World. New York: New American Library. Kling, Rob 1980 Computer abuse and computer crime as organizational activities." Computers and Law Journal, 2(2), 403-427. Reprinted in Dunlop, Charles & Kling, Rob (eds.). 1991 Kling, Rob 1983 "Value conflicts in the deployment of computing applications: Cases in developed and developing countries." Telecommunications Policy, (March), 12-34. Reprinted in Dunlop, Charles & Kling, Rob (eds.). 1991 Kling, Rob 1987 "Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations." Critical Issues in Information Systems. Richard Boland and Rudy Hirschheim (eds.) London, John Wiley. Kling, Rob. 1992. "Behind the Terminal: The Critical Role of Computing Infrastructure In Effective Information Systems' Development and Use." in Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development. William Cotterman and James Senn (Eds.) New York, John Wiley. Kling, Rob and Suzanne Iacono 1984 "The control of information systems development after implementation." Communications of the ACM. (December) 27(12), 1218-1226. Kling, Rob and Suzanne Iacono 1988 "The mobilization of support for computerization: The role of computerization movements." Social Problems 35 (3), 236-243. Kling, Rob & Suzanne Iacono. 1990 "Making the Computer Revolution" Journal of Computing and Society. 1(1). Reprinted in Dunlop, Charles & Kling, Rob (eds.). 1991 Kling, Rob and Scacchi, Walt 1982 "The web of computing: Computer technology as social organization." Advances in Computers, 21, New York, Academic Press. Laudon, Kenneth. C. 1986 Dossier Society: Value Choices in the Design of National Information Systems. New York: Columbia University Press. Papert, Seymour 1980 Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books. Shneiderman, Ben. 1980 Software psychology: human factors in computer and information systems Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Publishers. Shneiderman, Ben 1987 Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley. Star, Leigh and Karen Wieckert 1989 The Central Tension in Computer Science. Unpublished ms. Deaprtment of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine. Winograd, Terry 1988 A Language/action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work,'' Human-Computer Interaction 3:1 (1987--88), 3--30. Reprinted in Greif, Irene (Ed.), Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, San Mateo, California: Morgan-Kaufmann, 1988, 623--653. Yourdon, Edward 1986 Nations at Risk: The Impact of The Computer Revolution. New York, Yourdon Press.