Thanks!
]]>On Thursday we will read an article that describes another commonly used (and often misused) social networking concept: homophily. McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook’s (2001) article is theoretically rigourous with excellent examples and supporting material. We will talk about the major arguments in the article and then talk about how and why the principle of homophily is so important to those of us who care about issues like the adoption and use of information systems and technologies.
]]>While the Tuesday reading is a review of broader sociological issues and research surrounding the Internet, our Thursday reading is focused on some of the more micro-sociological implications of the Internet. In many ways this is a paper that tries to argue agains some of the most common beliefs about the Internet (i.e., that the Internet causes behavior; that identity and social interaction are somehow completely different on the Internet than in the ‘real’ world). We want you to think about the evidence that McKenna and Bargh present– do their arguments challenge any of your own assumptions about the interplay between the Internet and human behavior? As always, come prepared to discuss!
]]>As Lessig argues, at opposite ends of the spectrum we can think of code as something that could enable perfect freedom, or at the other end—perfect regulation. Our goal will not be to debate copyright law and IP rights specifically (you will find that in our ischool law/policy course); rather, we want to talk about the relationship between the code and how it relates to users (and vice versa). To take it a step further, we then want to think about how this relationship might connect to the larger institutions that attempt to provide regulation and structure to digital information technologies.
]]>Also, one particularly interesting (IMHO) explanation for the paradox. Some of you may have heard of Edward Tufte, who wrote a couple of really great books on information vizualization. Tufte is on a mission against Powerpoint - I mean, the man hates it. Check out this Wired Mag. piece from a few years ago with the unambiguous title Powerpoint is Evil. He makes the point that practices around Powerpoint have evolved in ways that obscure information while giving it a sense of credibility because it adheres to a certain form. So, here we have an example of a piece of technology that might have increased productivity, but does not necessarily do so because its uses have evolved to suit other goals: status, power, authority. (i.e. people suck) But it’s an interesting example of the importance of social processes.
]]>