SOCIO-TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVES ON DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE Eric T. Meyer Ph.D. Student in Information Science July 2005 Doctoral Qualifying Paper Submitted in support of an application to doctoral candidacy in the School of Library and Information Science Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Table of Contents 1.0 Abstract...............................................................................................................................3 2.0 Introduction and Theoretical Perspectives..........................................................................4 2.1 Communication Regimes................................................................................................5 2.2 Diffusion of Innovations...............................................................................................15 2.3 Social Construction of Technology (SCOT).................................................................16 2.3.1 Critiques of SCOT................................................................................................29 2.4 Actor-Network Theory (ANT)......................................................................................32 2.4.1 Critiques of ANT..................................................................................................40 2.5 Socio-Technical Interaction Networks (STINs)...........................................................43 3.0 Problematizing Photography.............................................................................................49 3.1 Traditional Photography...............................................................................................49 3.2 Digital shift...................................................................................................................50 3.3 Photography as a Social Informatics (SI) topic............................................................56 4.0 Statement of the Research Problem, Domain and Questions...........................................59 5.0 Methods.............................................................................................................................63 6.0 Conclusion........................................................................................................................71 7.0 References Cited...............................................................................................................72 2 1.0 Abstract In 2003, sales of digital cameras surpassed those of film cameras, and there has been widespread adoption of digital photography by professional photographers. While scholars have long argued that photography plays an important social role, few have examined photography as a socio-technical phenomenon. Digital photography, considered as a set of novel technological artifacts supplanting traditional cameras, offers new opportunities for studying how photographers work and communicate. This paper develops an argument for studying digital photography as a socio-technical phenomenon. First, communication regimes are introduced as a new conceptual tool for understanding the role of communication technologies in socio-technical systems as well as a way of bounding research into communication-related socio-technical systems of interest. Second, the paper lays out a path of inquiry in the literature that is most broadly represented in the social construction of technology (SCOT) tradition, more specifically elaborated in actor- network theory (ANT), and most recently articulated in the socio-technical interaction network approach (STIN). This path of inquiry is helpful for understanding, among other things, the role of specific technologies within socio-technical networks and how technology can be a factor for social change in socio-technical systems. Third, the paper argues that the recent introduction of digital photography offers a potentially fruitful area of study for information scientists and those studying information technologies. Finally, the paper argues that case study methods offer a way to understand STINs of interest that are operating within communication regimes using digital photography, and offers a potential research strategy for undertaking such a study. 3 2.0 Introduction and Theoretical Perspectives In this paper, several theoretical perspectives applicable in varying degrees to the study of digital photography as an instrument of social change will be discussed in detail. First, communication regimes will provide a conceptual tool for framing the most basic question of this research: “how is digital photography socially constructed, and what are the social implications of digital photography, particularly in professional communication regimes which are heavily invested in using photography as a communication medium?” Next, Rodger’s Diffusions of Innovation theory will be discussed briefly to explain why this theoretical perspective, which on the surface may appear applicable to this question, will not be pursued in more depth. The next three perspectives, while not precisely subsets of each other, can be seen as closely related perspectives that each deal with increasingly specific aspects of technology and social change. Social Construction of Technology, or SCOT, is a perspective developed in the field of sociology beginning in the early 1980s, and provides a broad understanding of how and why technology is socially constructed by human actors. Latour’s Actor-Network Theory, or ANT, developed in the mid-1980s, is related to SCOT and focuses more specifically on how technological and human “actants” are part of a social network that is involved in strategic negotiation and mobilization of support for particular actants. ANT is particularly focused on organizations. Next, Kling’s Socio-Technical Interaction Network (STIN) approach is again a more specific perspective using some of the tools of ANT but applying them to understanding that actants are not only engaged in social negotiation but are themselves also both enhanced and limited in their actions due to the complex social networks of which they are a part. 4 2.1 Communication Regimes1 An organizing concept for this research will be communication regimes. Table 1 outlines the definition of a communication regime. A full discussion of each component of this definition is discussed below, following a brief history of the concept. Table 1. Communication Regime Defined A communication regime is… 1. …a loosely coupled social network in which the communication and the work system are highly coupled. 2. …a system with a set of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge. 3. …a system in which the types of communication are tightly coupled to the production system in which they are embedded. 4. …a system with institutions which help to support and to regulate the regime. 5. …a system within which there are conflicts over control, over who enforces standards, over who bears the costs of change and who reaps the benefits of change. Communication regimes were introduced to information science only recently by Kling et. al. (Kling, Spector, & Fortuna, 2004), who relied on Hilgartner’s (1995) introduction of the concept as it applied to scientific communication (see also Bohlin, 2004). Discussing the changes that occurred as E-biomed was transformed into PubMed Central, Kling et. al. argue that various aspects of the biomedical science journal publication communication regime, including “those regarding gate-keeping, the business model, speed of information sharing, mobilization of authors, and the communication infrastructure” were fundamentally altered. “Examining the transformation of E-biomed to PubMed Central from a ‘communication regime’ viewpoint, we see that significant changes to the biomedical science journal communication regime existed in the original proposal” (Kling et al., 2004:140). Also, Kling et. al. argue that their case study illustrates that the transformative effects did not spring autonomously from the technology (in this case, the internet), but were shaped by various groups seeking to serve their own interests. Hilgartner, likewise, saw the transformative effects of biomolecular databases on the 1 A version of this section of the paper has been accepted for publication in the 2005 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Information Science and Technology (Meyer, 2005, Forthcoming). 5 communication regimes of biomolecular journal publication. “Clearly, public biomolecular databases have become much more than simply computerized versions of print-based publications: they represent new forms of scientific interaction based on novel and rapidly evolving communication regimes” (Hilgartner, 1995:258). Hilgartner is careful to point out that in his conceptualization, there is not a singular communication regime representing biomolecular publication. Instead, he identifies a variety of related and interconnected communication regimes, including services that abstract from journals and the process of direct submission to journals, which he considers to be niches within a “broader ecology of biomolecular knowledge” which can support a variety of communication regimes. While Kling, Hilgartner, and Bohlin all use the concept of communication regimes to understand scientific communication, this research proposes expanding the concept to other areas in general and to digital photography in particular. The case for using the concept in this instance is described below. First, however, it is instructive to look at how the concept of a regime developed, and what elements of regimes may be useful to information science. Kling’s desire to bring the concept of a communication regime into information science was based at least partly on his familiarity with Hilgartner’s use of the phrase2. Hilgartner, in turn, developed communication regimes “as a sort of grounded, or even rough-and-ready, concept for bringing into focus how patterns of control, power, institutional re-engineering, and inter- and intra-actor relations were being reshaped in both the ‘small’ and the ‘large’ changes underway [in science communication]” (S. Hilgartner, personal communication, 09/15/2004). Both Kling and Hilgartner were using an existing concept, that of regimes, and moving it into a communication and information specific context. 2 Although Kling only has one published reference to this concept, he and the author engaged in extensive discussions on this concept in the months before his death in 2003. Much of the definition developed in this paper arose from these conversations. 6 Of course, the concept is clearly related to Foucault’s treatment of “regimes.” Foucault rejected ‘truth’ as an absolute concept, preferring to discuss less “what happened” than “how were people brought to think what happened.” He likewise discussed the non-absolute nature of power, which Foucault understood as being dispersed through a network of relationships which make up society and based in discourse. ‘Truth’ must be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation, and operation of statements. ‘Truth’ is linked in a circular relation with systems of power with produce and sustain it, and to the effects of power which it induces and which extends it. A ‘regime’ of truth. (Foucault, 1984:74) Just as Foucault understood truth and power to be both non-absolute and related to each other through social networks, I am suggesting that this point of view (common among anthropologists, for instance3) will help illuminate our understanding of communication with organizations. The concept of regime itself, of course, is most frequently used in the popular political realm when discussing the regimes of various political leaders4, but can also mean, more generally “the set of conditions under which a system occurs or is maintained” (OED Online, 1989). It is this more general concept that has been used predominantly in academic political science discourse. Lord discusses how the concept of a regime has developed in the political science literature: 3 See Boyer (2003) for a discussion of the ubiquity of Foucault’s concepts among contemporary anthropologists. 4 A recent example widely covered in the news was frequent discussions of regime change in regard to the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq in the 2002-2003 run up to the Iraq war. A Lexis search for “regime iraq” for the first six months of 2003, for instance, turns up 632 news items referring to regimes. This also points to one of the difficulties with the popular use of the word regime, which has come more often to be applied to governments which Western nations, and the United States in particular, consider politically undesirable. 7 Regimes are classically defined in International Relations theory as the voluntary convergence of actors on a shared set of norms, meanings, expectations and procedures for communicating, co-ordinating and acting. Self-enforcement, the internationalization of conventions and low level of institutionalization are thus key elements that distinguish regimes from alternative forms of political cohesion. (Lord, 1999:3) This definition, while intended for the analysis of international political organizations, is general enough to potentially be applicable to other types of organizations. This is even clearer in some of the seminal work in international relations on regime theory5. While International Regime Theory was first introduced in 1975 in a special edition of International Organization (Gale, 1998), the most widely accepted definition of an international regime comes from Krasner: Regimes can be defined as sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge…Principles are beliefs of fact, causation, and rectitude. Norms are standards for behavior defined in terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action. Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective choice. (1982:186) Regimes, in this conceptualization, are comprised of the “underlying principles of order and meaning that shape the manner of their formation and transformation” (Ruggie, 1982:380). Ruggie argues that these regimes are embedded in a larger social order. By embedded, Ruggie is 5 Habermas (1996) has also discussed regimes in ways that are primarily outside the scope of this paper. Habermas’ argument is that regimes regulate power and that regulations are a way for reconciling differences between facts and norms and thus addressing both social situation and aspirations. The extent to which there is “agreement between words and deeds may be the yardstick for a regime's legitimacy” (Habermas, 1996:150). For the purposes of this research, Habermas’ work has limited applicability because it tends to focus on macro settings. However, it will be useful to keep in mind the notion of legitimacy, and attempt to look for evidence of legitimate regulation in terms of the day to day practices of organizations. 8 referring to Polanyi’s argument that in pre-industrial societies, economic behavior was a function of, and contained within, social behavior, and not a separate activity6. One criticism of regime theory is that it emphasizes static descriptions of systems, dealing predominantly with the status quo (Strange, 1982). This criticism should be kept in mind when translating this concept to communication regimes. If indeed we are interested in examining change in communication regimes due to the influence of technology, in this case digital photography, we must be careful not to imply that the previous state of the communication regime was a static and unchanging set of principles, norms, rules and decision- making procedures. Economic, cultural, social, and organizational changes will have happened previously, and changes both large and small will be occurring independently of technological innovation even at the same time as technology-influenced change is occurring. Kling et. al. (2004) and Hilgartner (1995) however, as discussed above, specifically choose to use the concept of communication regimes to illuminate a period of change and demonstrate for us the viability of using the concept to aide in understanding changing, not static, regimes. Also, more recent international relations applications of regime theory are specifically targeted at understanding social change: Students of regime theory, interested in employing the regime concept within a critical theoretical framework to reveal the political and economic struggles among state and social forces over a regime’s normative content, procedures and compliance mechanisms, will find much fascinating material in the recent literature on global civil society. It is evident that global social change organizations (GSCOs) are engaged in an ongoing 6 Polanyi also argued that even with the onset of a separate “economy” in industrial societies, there was still not a detachment between the social and the economic, just a reversal of the relative importance of each: now the social relations became embedded within the economic system as it assumes primacy (Block, 2001). This idea that the social and the economic are tightly coupled has clear ties to social informatics. 9 struggle to restructure existing international regimes in the interests of peace, human rights, improvements in the status of women, environmental protection, forest conservation and sustainable trade. (Gale, 1998:279) Also, since the basis of regime theory is in analyzing international relations and the behavior of governments and other international organizations, it is not possible to apply all of the theory’s elements directly to smaller organizations in non-governmental settings. But as the preceding quote makes clear, it may be useful to draw on when looking at social change. Modifying this specific formulation to one more useful to understanding information and communication technologies (ICT’s) and social change in communication-intensive organizations7 will be of benefit not only to this research, but also to others researching similar domains in information science. At the beginning of this section, Table 1 offers a definition of a communication regime. Next, we will examine this definition in more detail. For now let us look at each element of this definition in turn and discuss briefly how each might manifest in (for simplicity’s sake) one particular communication regime, photojournalism. Each element of this definition will be discussed in much greater detail in the dissertation based on this research. 1. A communication regime is a loosely coupled social network in which the communication and the work system are highly coupled. Professional photojournalists and their news editors are part of a communication regime. The members of this regime are part of a shared social network, as are most people in workplaces, but in addition, the nature of their work is highly coupled to the communication of 7 It is important to note that communication regimes as conceptualized here are interested in organizational communication at both internal and external levels of analysis. The external aspect of communication regimes is that the organizations that will be discussed are communication-centric organizations: organizations that have a primary purpose of communicating information for external consumption (e.g., news organizations, scholarly publications, etc…). The internal aspect includes the intra-organizational structures, norms, etc… that may be invisible to outside consumers of information, but nevertheless influence the forms that external communications eventually take. 10