In Weick’s discussion of sensemaking in organizations, he engages a process-oriented perspective toward sensemaking and discusses the difference between sensemaking and interpretation. I found that the differentiation speaks to a fundamental outlook on the nature of knowledge; that is, whether knowledge exists to be discovered (interpretation) or whether knowledge is created (sensemaking.) This points to a basic epistemological debate that underlies this conception of sensemaking, and a rather existentialist one at that.
Weick is credited with the concept of the enacted environment, as discussed by Pfeffer & Salancik, who seemed to define the environment as that which the organization knows it to be, which is to say that whatever the organization is not aware of, is not a part of its environment. Only the reality as known by the organization can be acted upon, even if that reality is not a very good representation of the environment. I find this perspective intriguing and also somewhat paradoxical; it implies an external subjective reality that can only be partially known by the organization, and that the portion that is known by the organization is its environment, which is socially constructed and subjective. This must be the main point of differentiation in the discussion of the enacted environment, as opposed to any other sort, is the enacted environment seems to be socially constructed, which would imply that non-enacted environments exist, and are not socially constructed. At the same time, I expected that the concept of an enacted environment might come closer to the idea of co-evolution of the organization and the environment, but from my reading, this does not really seem to be the case. Enactment puts control almost entirely in human hands.
Just to be picky, I would also flatly refute the assertion from Pfeffer & Salancik that “information is not neutral.” Information IS neutral. The perception and use of information is not neutral. The information itself does not take sides, though it may present a non-neutral perspective, which should instead be attributed the source of information.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald Salanick, “The enactment process,” in The External Control of Organizations, 71-78. Harper & Row.
Weick, Karl, 1995. “The nature of sensemaking,” in Sensemaking in Organizations 1-16 Sage.
I attended my first NSF workshop earlier this week at UC Irvine; the hospitality and sunshine were delightful. The workshop was a great opportunity to meet others who are interested in similar research questions and who deal with the same challenges in dealing with FLOSS data. It was also a nice chance to put some of my learning from my teaching practicum with the Science Data Management course, although the class hasn’t progressed all the way through the relevant topics that would apply to the workshop focus on FLOSS research infrastructure. The combination of experiences should provide a useful context for me when it comes time to write an NSF grant proposal this summer, especially because one of the benefits of attending this workshop was learning a lot more, from insiders’ perspectives, about how the NSF funding works for these types of projects.
The workshop experience was new for me; a handful of invited participants made presentations and the discussion of their content formed the base of the program, unlike many workshops which are based on presentations of position papers or work in progress. I presented a couple of slides demonstrating the use of Taverna Workbench to replicate prior research that uses the FLOSSmole data repository. After a day and a half of “think tank” discussions, many participants had to fly home, but a few of us stayed an extra evening (due flight schedules, among other things) and we put together a draft outline of the workshop report for the funding agency. Developing the workshop report was probably the best part for me - it gave a nice summary and review of everything that had transpired, with intense discussion among the few of us who remained. We wrote it collaboratively, sharing a document with Google Docs, so even though I didn’t really say much, I was able to contribute “legitimate peripheral participation” in the form of writing. The workshop web site was another such case; it was designed for collaborative content contribution, and I posted some of my notes for posterity. So instead of blogging here about the content of the workshop, it was blogged on the workshop site.
One thing that was notable to me is how overwhelmingly male-dominated this area is. This is not just because computer science is underpopulated by women, but the gender disparity is apparently even more extreme in FLOSS development and research. The evidence at this workshop was the attendance of just two women in a group of 20 participants - only 10% - which I found slightly mystifying, given the nearly equal gender balance on the SU FLOSS research team. In fact, I think we have more women than men in the FLOSS group right now. However, a key detail is that I’m the only “data geek” among them (like the other female workshop participant, who’s into data mining) and this might be true for the broader population. It doesn’t put me off; if anything, a gender imbalance in this regard indicates good opportunities for people like me. But I do wonder why it is so…
In Sewell’s criticism of Giddens’ discussion of structuration theory, he finds the idea of a virtual nonhuman resource implausible, but information is a resource that can be virtual and nonhuman, while also being human and actual. Information as a resource can take many forms; information embedded in individuals or processes would seem to be virtual and human, while information recorded in some durable media such as print text appears to be actual and nonhuman, and information recorded in digital media can arguably be considered virtual and nonhuman.
I’m not sure why the virtual versus actual nature of resources matters so much to Sewell. Part of the challenge in interpreting Sewell’s intention in discussing the “virtual” aspects of structure is that he does not directly define “virtual” to clarify his perspective but rather refers to the literature and Giddens’ assertion of existence of structure outside of space and time. Sewell’s redefinition of rules and resources as virtual schemas and actual resources leaves me wondering which of these constitutes information, or whether both do.
Sewell’s discussion of the polysemy of resources refers several times to “an array of resources” that is interpreted or reinterpreted, and the language suggests that the word “information” is a suitable substitute for “array of resources.” This would lead me to restate the definition of agency as the actor’s ability to use information in context, and structure as the information and culture that influence social action and tend to be reproduced by social action. Perhaps this is a bit simplistic, but it is an interpretation that helps me think about the theory in terms that are meaningful to me.
Sewell, William 1992 “A theory of structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation”, American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1-29
Giddens, Anthony. 1979. “Agency Structure”, in Central Problems in Social Theory, 49-72 Cambridge University Press
I’m doing a lot more writing lately. In fact, much more writing than I think I had ever expected, had I ever stopped working long enough to set expectations. I’ve been a coauthor on three conference paper submissions this month, and submitted an accepted full paper as well. My classes this semester will both require much more frequent writing exercises; last semester’s weekly “missives” were only a warm-up for this semester. My organizational sociology seminar requires a weekly memo, and three short papers, while my theory construction seminar requires ad-hoc weekly writing assignments, two short theory construction papers, and a longer dissertation framework paper. I can handle this kind of ongoing, progressive writing; there are deadlines and I can plan accordingly.
What I’ve generally failed to take into account is all of the other writing, like conference papers and even just the abstracts. For those who don’t know, it’s not uncommon for long abstracts to be submitted for conference papers, which are only written upon acceptance of the abstract. This means you’re routinely writing short papers of about 1,000 - 1,500 words for submissions; when they are accepted, you scale it up to whatever the venue expects, which varies widely. Of course, this is only the case some of the time; often the full paper has to be submitted. Two of this month’s submissions were of the latter variety, but I was only first author for one of them and I’m the last author for the abstract which makes up the third submission this month. All of these papers were written with Kevin Crowston and James Howison as an outcome of my fall research practicum with the FLOSS research group.
Now we wait to see if any of them are accepted. I’m hopeful; I think they represent good and interesting work. I still have a perfect acceptance record; every paper I submitted through 2007 was accepted. This suggests two things: first, I haven’t really submitted many papers, and second, this statistic cannot possibly last!
I’m taking a break between writing conference papers to write a bit about spinning. I started to go into it in my last post, and I’ve since acquired a few more tools of the trade. There are two main methods that I’ve seen to spin yarn; the first is by hand with a drop spindle, and the second way uses a spinning wheel. Either way, some extra tools help to deal with the spun yarn, and there are some nifty gadgets for that. I’m sticking with old-fashioned entirely manual wooden tools. They are beautiful objects that I find appealing in a purist, Luddite kind of way. The simplicity of the tools and the fact that each is itself handcrafted makes me happy.
In addition to my drop spindle, I now have a nostepinde and a niddy noddy. Aren’t those just great words to say? Both of these are for winding yarn. A niddy noddy allows you to make neat skeins and also measure out how much yarn is spun. The second tool, a nostepinde, is a “small stick for winding balls of yarn” according to its Scandinavian name. Mine is exotic zebrawood, voluptuously curved and polished to a soft glow. After measuring out each spun skein using the niddy noddy, I can wrap the yarn around the nostepinde for a neat center-pull ball that is easy to use for plying or for knitting. It’s really a brilliant little tool and fabulously simple. As with most simple tools, technique is everything, so it will take some practice before my yarn balls look as crisp and prim as those in the yarn stores.
I also discovered that I can spin dog hair. I know, that’s really weird, but Chili’s underfur is very soft and long, perfectly suited to spinning. I was just messing around after spending some time brushing her, and now I have a little ball of Chili-fur-yarn. I’ve even seen ads for services where they make your pet’s hair into yarn. Who wants a sweater that smells like dog? Well, plenty of people want (cashmere) sweaters that smell like goats!
Other than a bit of craftiness, my break has been largely consumed by writing conference papers and traveling to Michigan for the holidays. It was great to see everyone back in the mitten, and I’m glad my conference papers are nearly wrapped up (for now…) I also tried to catch up a bit on my ongoing battle against entropy by transfering all of my back stock of 35mm negatives into archival binder sheets - over a hundred of them. I think it takes an average of 3 hours or so per roll of film for negative scanning and the basic required clean-up of the scans, so scanning this backlog could be a very long term project!
