SCOT

I expect you to have explicitly and appropriately used the major elements
of SCOT framework. Explicitly means using SCOT terminology and
identifying these as coming from the SCOT model. Simply talking about
multiple user groups in your analysis does not in itself qualify as using
the SCOT model.

The major components:

-relevant social groups: share a meaning of an artifact -- they are not
defined by demographics or roles but by their shared meaning. E.g.,
Bijker's "young men of verve and means" were not just young men, or ALL
young men, but those who had the money and the interest in going fast and
saw the bicycle as a means to do this.
A person can be a member of multiple groups, or different groups at
different times.

-interpretive flexibility: the same artifact can have different interps
across time, place, group

-stabilization: does not necessarily mean that one physical device has one
meaning - SCOT deals with how design gets stabilized to accommodate
multiple meanings. E.g., cell phones as social devices and as business
devices have common characteristics that makes it possible for the same
phone to be used for both purposes (by the same person or different
people). Nor does it mean one uniform design, just as bicycles have never
all been identical -- but a bicycle is distinctly different from, say, a
motorcycle.

Interpretive flex is often most marked and most interesting when a tech is
NOT stabilized -- diversity of interpretations >> diversity of design
needs and preferences.

Stabilization may be (and probably virtually always is) relative, and
temporary. While SCOT analyses often assume that stabilization is the
goal, it's probably more accurate to see stabilization as a possible (and
transitory) stage.

-technological frames: this was added in one of the later readings, so I
don't expect everyone to have included it, but it's another element of the
model that could have been included.

You were also asked to end by reflecting on SCOT and its usefulness - some
of you omitted this, some of you seemed to be quoting what I or others had
said, but in such a way that it wasn't clear that you understood what
those criticisms meant. Ideally, this reflection would be rooted in your
preceding analysis - how SCOT helped you construct it, or how in this
case you needed to consider other factors that didn't easily fit the SCOT
model.

Misc Points Related to Analyses

Don't be too narrow in your analyses, such as your consideration of
people's understanding and use of phone -- e.g., many of you considered a
mobile phone being used by a person in a place ONLY to communicate with a
specific type of other person. But that person, using that phone, in that
place could, and often does, communicate with a wide range of other
people, and the meaning that the phone has for them is composed of their
multiple uses.

Be wary of unjustified generalizations -- e.g., about men, women,
students, parents, and so forth. This is a particular trap in dealing with relevant
social groups. It's very easy to fall into stereotypes and sweeping
generalizations. E.g., while you may have observed that many young women
use the phone as a fashion device, that doesn't mean that they all do or
that no young men do.

Some Common Writing Problems:

-Convoluted, ambiguous prose. The reader should always be able to parse
out exactly what you are saying-- sounds obvious, but this was a common
problem.

-unclear referents for pronouns (e.g., "they" meaning either the phones or
the persons talked about)

-imprecise choice of words, mismatch of words, errors of usage: "the
mobile phone may be a stigma to talk on" >> "there may be a stigma to
talking on a mobile phone." (The phone itself is not a stigma; and avoid
dangling preposition.)

-wandering verb tenses

-Mismatched/unclear number. "Most use a mobile phone." "If they had a
mobile phone." All use the same one? Instead: "Most use mobile phones."
"If they had mobile phones."

-Pronouns and number: colloquially, we use "their" in place of his or her:
"the person...and their phone." vs. "The person...and his or her phone."
However, this is not correct usage. From the NY Times Manual of Style and
Usage p. 332 (a source I recommend): "their, theirs, them, they: these
pronouns are plural. Do not apply them to singular antecedents (like
anyone' or someone') even when the aim is to avoid assuming maleness or
femaleness."

-Excess words:
"It would facilitate increased intra-family communication in between
physical visits to the facility." >>
"It would increase family communication between visits."

-Confusing closely related terms, especially "use" and "usage" (e.g.,
"usage of phones"): again, NYT Manual of Style and *Usage*: "Usage' refers
to habital or preferred practice in fields like grammar, law, etiquette,
and diplomacy. Use' is the less stilted term for employment or
consumption: the use of energy'; gasoline use'; automobile use.' (For
placement of these quotation marks, see NYT Manual p. 280.)

Overall, I would encourage you to buy a manual of style and usage like the
NY Times' ($15, available at Cody's) and make a habit of USING it. Browse
through it when you find yourself with a little time on your hands -- it's
a series of short entries (for those so inclined, it makes great bathroom
reading).