A League Of Its OwnTowards a new ontology for social software

Wim Bouman & Tim HoogenboomUniversity of Amsterdam Business School

De Maatschap

research communityepistemic practice

Boulevard Café

Knorr Cetina, Schatzski, Checkland, Buchanan, Latour, Giddens, Fiske

Ard Huizing & Mary Cavanagh

(now presenting at another room)

Designing for Sociality

Sociality, not functionality

Social objects

Research Themes

Social Sciences and Philosophy

soft systems thinkingrealist evaluation

new Foundationsfor IM in theory and research

Problem situation expressed

best paper awardThe question remains: What exactly is social software?

Downloads <here>

When is it relevant, useful or appropriate to denominate a certain IT-based system as ‘social software’?

And what are the consequences, if any, of (re-) applying IS logic to the design, development and deployment of social software systems?

And then what?

• A better ontology would allow us to– Describe what we see in the real world– Understand the interplay between social objects,

social software, social practices and sociable actors– Beschrijven wat we zien in de echte wereld– Begrijpen wat zich ‘interplay’ van social objects, social

software, social practices en sociable actors– Voorspellen wat de effecten zijn van IS

implementation and use– Designing better systems

Mejias (2005), for instance, considers multiplayer gaming environments, discourse facilitation systems (a wide array from mail, chat to messaging and so on), moderated commenting systems, content management systems (blogs, wikis, document management), web annotation utilities, product development systems, peer-to-peer file sharing systems, selling or purchasing management systems, learning management systems, relationship management systems, syndication systems and distributed

classification systems as social software.

does this make any sense or help for either science or practice?

We asked ourselves

an ontology

We don’t need more definitions, we don’t need broader definitions – we need a fundamental approach

Obervations

Ontology is an often neglected subjectDefinitions are author and context specific

Common definitions of social software too broadFocus on information related problems

Neglect indeterminateness of social software

BasicsIT-based systems do exist, but social software do not exist as such; they appear and unfold themselves in use in their formative context only

An IT-based system (e.g. a wiki) that serves for a certain social group as a collaborative editing tool, might be the nexus of social activity or object-centered sociality for another group. The code, structure and functionality of the software may even be exactly the same

Soft Systems Thinking

IT-based systems can not be meaningfully qualified as social software by their design per se, nor by their functions.

It is the actual manifestation in practice only that ultimately defines the qualification of a particular IT-based system

Archetypical Manifestations; Information Systems, Knowledge Management Systems, Social Software Systems.

Social software are IT-based systems, engaged by their users as an unfolding object for constructing and reproducing their social relations

Reapplying traditional IS logic to the design, development and deployment of social software might turn out to be devastating

IT-based systems become a thing to live with, and designers are liable for finding solutions that improve the way people interact with these IT-based artifacts

Key Findings

Archetypical manifestation

Information Systems Knowledge Management Systems

Social Software Systems

System Rationale Informing Learning BelongingOntological Stance Hard systems thinking Dependant on knowledge

metaphor (knowledge as an object versus knowledge as negotiated meaning)

Soft system thinking

Epistemological Stance Tame problems Predictable problems Wicked problems

Design logic Designing by drawing Designing as a process Designing without a product

Form Functionality driven Pre authorized paths of reasoning

Dynamic, ‘unfolding’ objects

Function Improving information supply and exchange

Matching questions and answers (via expert logic)

Triggering sociality and social relations in practice

Patterns of Reasoning Technological deterministic Asynchronous presentation and representation of knowledge disembedded in time and space

Sociality driven around social objects

Actor Model Economic, Bounded rational actor

Transactional, knowledgeable actor

Social, Network embedded actor

Implementation strategy Blueprinted implementation

Free choice adoption Socially triggered voluntary participation

Concept of Usability Being able to operate and to interact

Content value and applicability

Desirable in social context

Implications and directions for future research

technology as constructed in an epistemic practice of informing, learning and belonging

IT-based systems are socially embedded; sociable actors decide what is it for whom and whether to make them ‘work’

Design as inherently wicked process of designing without a product

technology as objects; with unfolding relations