Social informatics: Principles, theory, and practice

IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

Volumn 223, Issue , 2006, Pages 49-62

  Sawyer, Steve ^a   Tyworth, Michael ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Integrated criminal justice information systems; Social actors; Social informatics; Socio technical interaction networks; Socio technical principles

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; INTERACTION NETWORKS; SOCIAL ACTORS; SOCIAL INFORMATICS; SOCIO-TECHNICAL PRINCIPLES;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 33846301054     PISSN: 15715736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-37876-3_4     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Baird, Z., & Barksdale, J. (2003). Creating a Trusted Network for Homeland Security: Second Report of the Markle Foundation Task Force. Task Force on National Security in the Information Age Retrieved January 1, 2005, from http://www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/ nstf_report2_full_report.pdf
2. Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 1-23.
3. Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2002). Mission Possible: Strong Governance Structures for the Integration of Justice Information Systems. Retrieved November 3, 2004. from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ bja/192278.pdf
5. Dunworth, T. (2000). Criminal Justice and the IT Revolution. Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, 3, 371-426.
6. Dunworth, T. (2005). Information Technology and the Criminal Justice System: A Historical Review. In A. Pattavina (Ed.), Information Technology and the Criminal Justice System (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
7. Fleck, J. (1994). Learning by trying: The implementation of configurational technology. Research Policy, 23(6), 637-652.
8. General Accountability Office. (2003). Information Technology: FBI Needs an Enterprise Architecture to Guide Its Modernization Activities. Retrieved, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03959.pdf
9. Hoey, A. (1998). Techno-Cops: Information Technology and Law Enforcement. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 6(1), 69-90.
10. Horton, K., Davenport, E., & Wood-Harper, T. (2005). Exploring sociotechnical interaction with Rob Kling: Five 'big' ideas. Information Technology & People, 18(1), 50-65.
11. Kitcher, P. (1982). Believing what we cannot prove. In P. Kitcher (Ed.), Abusing Science: The case against creationism (pp. 30-54). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
12. Kling, R. (1999). What is Social Informatics and Why Does it Matter? D-Lib Magazine Retrieved September I, 2004, from http://www.dlib.org/ dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html
13. Kling, R., McKim, G., & King, A. (2003). A Bit More to IT: Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 47-67.
14. Kling, R., Rosenbaum, H., & Sawyer, S. (2005a). Teaching Key Ideas of Social Informatics. In Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics: A Framework for Studying and Teaching the Human Contexts of Information and Communications Technologies (pp. 83-103). Medford, N.J.: Information Today Inc.
15. Kling, R., Rosenbaum, H., & Sawyer, S. (2005b). Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics: A Framework for Studying and Teaching the Human Contexts of Information and Communications Technologies. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.
16. Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 27(2), 197-235.
17. Lamb, R., & Sawyer, S. (2005). On extending social informatics from a rich legacy of networks and conceptual resources. Information Technology & People, 18(1), 9-19.
18. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
19. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. (2004). The 9/11 Commission report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States: Official government edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20. Orlikowski, W. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations, Organization Science, J(4), 380-398.
21. Orlikowski, W., & Barley, S. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145-164.
22. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions, Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-19.
23. Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6(4), 401-423.
24. Quintas, P. (1994). Programmed Innovation? Trajectories of Change in Software Development. Information Technology & People, 7, 25-47.
25. Sawyer, S., & Crowston, K. (2004). Information Systems in Organizations and Society: Speculating on the Next 25 Years of Research. In B. Kaplan, D. Truex, D. Wastell, A. Wood-Harper & J. DeGross (Eds.), Information systems research: Relevant theory and informed practice, (pp. 35-52) Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Sawyer, S., Tapia, A., Pesheck, L., & Davenport, J. (2004). Mobility and the First Responder. Communications of the ACM, 47(3), 62-66.
27. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28. Shelby, R. (2002). September 11 and the Imperative of Reform in the U.S. Intelligence Community: Additional Views of Senator Richard C. Shelby Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Retrieved November 1, 2004. from http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/ shelby.pdf
29. Strickland, L. (2004). Analytic Myopia, Data Disintegration and Homeland Insecurity. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 30(6), 7-21.
30. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Suchman, L. (2003). Figuring Service in Discourses of ICT: The Case of Software Agents. In E. Wynn, E. Whitley, M. Myers & J. DeGross (Eds.), Global and organizational discourse about information technology, (pp. 33-45). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
32. Winner, L. (1986). Do Artifacts Have Politics? In The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology (pp. 19-39). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Wood-Harper, T., & Wood, B. (2005). Multiview as social informatics in action: Past, present and future. Information Technology & People, 18(1), 21-26.
34. Ziman, J. M. (1968). What is Science? In J. M. Ziman (Ed.), Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science (pp. 5-27). London: Cambridge University Press.