Your question is perfectly timed for me as I am currently collaborating
on an article pertaining to the adoption of technology. This is a short
section from an early draft of the article. It looks at the distributed
nature of agency in organizations, especially as it pertains to
technology adoption. Though the section is not fully developed, I am
offering it in response to your post and I would be grateful for any
feedeback ...
-----------------------------
Adoption of technology can be viewed from several angles: from the
perspective of the technology itself, from the viewpoint of its
designer/manufacturer, from the viewpoint of the seller, the buyer, the
individual user, the user community, or from the activity in which the
technology is put into service.
Activity Theory (AT) looks at technology adoption from the latter
perspective. Technology has little or no significance outside of those
contexts in which it is put to use. From the perspective of AT,
technology is appropriated as a mediational means by which a conscious
subject carries out a clearly intended goal. Viewed from this
perspective, the technology and its appropriation are rarely mistaken as
ends in themselves. Activity Theory clearly distinguishes between the
subject, the object and the mediational means for the given activity.
Yes, technology can be both the means and the objective of activity. But
when we speak of adoption of technology in activity contexts, our inquiry
pertains to the mediational means and not the object of the activity. In
the computer-aided design of an automobile for example, one technology is
the mediational means by which another technology is created. But it is
the design technology that is being adopted in this example. The
immediate aim is to design a car - not to get to the opposite side of
town. In this example, the appropriated means is clearly the CAD tool and
not the car.
When we speak of adoption in activity theory contexts, we view it from the
standpoint of the subject. Who'se activity is it? Who has agency in the
activity? The question of subject is sometimes difficult to answer within
the framework of modern industry. In our CAD example, we can assume that
it was probably not the CAD designer who selected the tool which she uses
in her job. Selection of such an elaborate and capital-intensive tool
undoubtedly involves management decision. But in that selection, it
would be a mistake for management to ignore the considerations of those
who will use the tool day in and day out. The tool is most likely
selected from a set of pragmatic criteria defined both by management and
the practitioner community of tool users. In other words, the agency in
tool selection is distributed across the organization.
Sometimes there is a serious contradiction between managment criteria in
tool selection and criteria of the user community. A classic example of
such contradiction could be seen in the so-called "half hoe" which
corporate farmers provided to farm laborers in California in the 1960s.
Management saw the short-handled hoe as a more efficient implement which
would lead to greater productivity for each hour of labor. What those
bosses failed to recognize was the potential of the implements to cause
serious back injuries to their users over time. This contradiction over
tool selection led to serious labor unrest in California, ultimately
costing the companies millions of dollars in unreaped harvests and lost
markets due to secondary boycots of grapes and table wine. Management
exercised exclusive agency in the selection of the tool. By ignoring the
joint agency of their work force, they ultimately failed to achieve their
objective.
This word, agency, is interesting and significant. It implies more than
mere will or intentionality. To be the agent in an activity, one must
have not only the will, but the ability to carry out the intended outcome.
Agency includes intentionality, but it also implies access to the tangible
and intangible means to bring about the desired outcome. The actual means
that are employed may not become obvious until the subject is well into
the activity. Regardless of the constraints, the agentive subject has the
confidence and the means to move forward, adjusting, adopting, and
creating whatever mediational tools may be necessary to accomplish the
goal. With each new affordance that is adopted, the problem is transformed
and new constraints emerge. With each new constraint that appears,
work-around solutions must be created, involving the adoption of new
mediational means. From this perspective, we can see that adoption and
adaptation are continuous processes that define an activity. Agency
necessarily involves new learning, and constant renegotiation of
mediational means. In organizational contexts, this agency is
necessarily distributed between practitioners and decision makers. The
process of technology adoption is a manifestation of organizational
learning.
--------------------
Martin R.
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Bonnie
Nardi wrote:
> Does anyone have any good pointers to work on the formation of collective
> subjects, i.e., extending the idea of a subject as an individual to a group?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --------
>
> Bonnie A. Nardi
> Research Scientist
> AT&T Labs West
> 75 Willow Road
> Menlo Park, CA 94025
> (650) 463-7064
> nardi who-is-at research.att.com
> fax:(650) 327-3796
> www.best.com/~nardi/default.html
>
>