Moor, A. de

Weigand, H.

English

Research Papers in Economics

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS IN THE DESIGN OF RESEARCH
NETWORK INFORMATION SYSTEMS*
Aldo de Moor, Hans Weigand
Infolab, Tilburg University
P.O.Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
e-mail: ademoor/h.weigand@kub.nl
ABSTRACT
Research networks demand methodological support for the design of
adequate network information systems. These systems need to support
strong collaboration, that is, the group production of structured artifacts.
A typical group artifact for research networks is described: the group
report. It is argued that specifying such an artifact in terms of key social
constraints is a suitable specification approach for research network
information systems. A case related to societal conflict mediation is
introduced to exemplify and validate the methodological theory.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A research network is a goal-oriented human network that focuses on facilitating the
research process through the planning and conduct of research activities, and the
dissemination and evaluation of results.  In this way, they can help resolve a wide range
of scientific and societal problems. A research network can be called a closed network if
it focuses on furthering specific dogmas and a priori excludes certain relevant viewpoints
and approaches. It can be called an open network, however, if it concentrates on carrying
out multiple-perspective, opinion-generating and comparing research activities (De
Moor, 1996a).
Especially when supported by appropriate applications of information technology,
research networks can be very useful instruments for fostering scientific collaboration.
Still, a problem with the current information technological support provided to
(Internet-dependent) research networks, is that they need to compose adequate overall
system functionality out of a wide range of quickly changing generic and unconnected
information tools. Mailing lists, web sites, issue-based information systems, and many
other tools have been developed, but it remains unclear how exactly they must be
configured and connected to truly satisfy the diversity of the rapidly evolving
information needs of the network participants. Therefore, a research network has a clear
need for a network information system: a set of meaningfully combined and configured
information and communication processes necessary to support and coordinate the
activities of the network participants in their various roles. To develop this kind of
* Presented at Eco-Informa '96, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, 4-7 November 1996system, a specification method is indispensable (De Moor, 1996a). Such a method is
currently being developed in the RENISYS project (De Moor, 1996b).
The key issue is, of course, what we mean by meaningfully  combining and
configuring information and communication processes.  In our opinion, meaningful
specification of information systems for (open) research networks is only possible if
done by the participants themselves, because only they have sufficient insight into
which - often only subtle - functionality changes are needed and allowed. However, in
the reality of daily work, user-driven system specification quickly shows a lack of focus
and continuity in efforts. One of the reasons for this is that system requirements cannot
be expressed in terms close enough to the users' experience. Thus, the specification
method needs to be context-sensitive: network participants must be able to express
relevant changes in the usage context in their own terminology.
However, what are relevant  changes that bear a direct influence on the way the
information system is designed? It is not useful nor possible to model all determinants
of change in the world, therefore a selection of the most important determinants needs to
be focused upon. We feel that the key to the solution of this restriction problem can be
found in the goal-orientedness of research networks. These goals are determined by the
need for strong collaboration: collaboration in which a group synergistically develops
and improves a structured artifact more efficiently than would be possible by the same
group of people working independently (Johnson and Moore, 1994).
Thus, one main function of the network information system is to support the
efficient and effective group production of such structured artifacts. For a specification
method to optimally enable users to adequately define the functionality of such systems,
it is thus important to know the characteristics of these artifacts and their production
processes. Therefore, we propose an approach in which users focus on defining a group
artifact in terms of its meeting certain key social constraints. These can be defined as
constraints on possible configurations and combinations of actors, objects and processes
that are caused by the specifics of the usage context of the network information system,
rather than constraints on the technological resources used. In the remainder of this
paper, we will focus on a very important type of research network artifact, the group
report. We will discuss how the selected core constraints must be grounded in social
theory. This is illustrated by a case on (scientific panel reports on) deforestation in
British Columbia.
2.0 A TYPICAL RESEARCH NETWORK ARTIFACT: THE GROUP REPORT
At present, the information tools used by most of the research networks communi-
cating through the Internet are not capable of supporting strong collaboration. However,
there are plenty of opportunities for improvement. One type of strongly collaborative
network activity which could become the focal point of collaborative system
development, is the writing of reports on issues relevant to the scope of the group. A
group report is a prime example of a dialogic text. According to Harrison and Stephen(1992) this is a type of text that, contrary to traditional collaborative texts, reflects the
involvement of multiple authorial voices. When producing these kinds of artifacts, a
key issue is the allocation of authority and accountability for the definition of authoring
processes and their results, and thus ultimately for the design of the information system.
To ensure that these constraints are sufficiently taken into account in the specification
discourse, the definition of such group report writing processes should be grounded in
social theory (De Moor, 1996a).
The production of (dialogic) group reports in open research networks can be seen as a
kind of formation of public opinion on a topic. A preeminent writer about public
opinion is the social philosopher Jurgen Habermas, whose main work is the theory of
communicative action. The domain of social life in which public opinion can be formed
is called the "public sphere". Habermas (1962) stresses some requirements for this
public sphere: it must be accessible to all citizens, it must be possible to deal with
matters of general interest without being subjected to coercion (freedom of assembly,
freedom to express and publicize opinions). He explicitly stresses issues
like the need for publicness and legitimation of authority. These social constraints lead
to a number of epistemological constraints as well, which revolve around the relativity
of "truth". Habermas (1984) prefers to talk about "rationality", which involves giving
valid arguments in the context of an unspoken background. When the background is
questioned, the arguments must be reevaluated. Thus, rationality has more to do with
the procedure of the argument than the outcome.
Group artifacts are often considered to be black boxes in system development
methods, and are only seen as data units that can be manipulated. However, each such
artifact has many social dimensions attached, which necessarily constrain the allowable
set of information and communication processes that can be involved in the production
and handling of the artifact. In standard methods, these constraints are often not paid
attention to at all or left implicit in the design team's specification rationale. However,
in research network information system design, these constraints need to be made
explicit if the system specifications are to be acceptable to all network participants. One
way to do this is by assisting the users in the interpretation of their usage context and
the subsequent calculation of the effects on the technical system.
Social theory, such as the need for rationality defined by Habermas, is too broad to
directly be translatable in consequences for system specification. Derived from
Habermas' insights, we will therefore first discuss two major social constraints,
neutrality and transparency, and then show how they can be used to define a spectrum of
group report types. By focusing on the description of the artifact in terms of social
constraints, we can thus on the one hand ensure that relatively vague but important
usage context needs are captured, while at the same time making these requirements
comprehensible to system designers by turning them into formal design issues. By way
of example, we describe two important social aspects, based on Habermas' ideas:
neutrality of reports and transparency of the writing process.• Neutrality
The neutrality dimension determines the kind and degree of participation of affected
parties in the production of the report. In traditional, monolithic reports, one person,
often the editor, has the ultimate voice on what are to be the structure and contents of
the final report. On the other side of the spectrum, one can imagine the completely
neutral group report, which includes all opinions of all group members on the problems
selected by the group. Neutrality here does not imply that individual opinions are free of
bias, they cannot be. Rather, it means that the discussion and report editing procedures,
and thus the implemented tools, ensure that equal weight is given to all opinions, so
that the network as a whole advocates a composition of opinions, instead of only a
single view.
• Transparency
Besides determining who has the authority to contribute what statements, it is also
important to know who is allowed to observe which part of the process in which these
statements are produced. Sachs (1995) claims that although public opinion is well
known, little is known about the formation of public opinion. In most of the studies on
this topic, the stress is on the outcome of the process, instead of on the process
itself. The same goes for group reports. Often, it is not known exactly how a report
came to be, as only the end result is known and the reasoning procedures applied remain
a black box to the observer.
We can now define the concept of scenario-presenting group report, which is a
neutral group report of which the creation processes are transparent to the reader. Such a
report represents the opinion of all parties on a specific issue. It consists of a part about
which true consensus has been reached, and a part which contains opinions about issues
of conflict, on which the authors have not (yet) reached agreement. Of course, the topic
selection process itself may not be completely free of bias. However, if each party is
allowed to frame its own research questions, this difficulty can be overcome.
3.0 USING GROUP REPORTS IN SOCIETAL CONFLICT MEDIATION:
A CASE ON DEFORESTATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
One of the most significant applications of scenario-based group reports is in
societal conflict mediation. As the world's environmental and developmental problems
increase in number and magnitude, there is an increasing demand for reliable and rapidly
obtainable research information that can be used to settle disputes. Thus, ad hoc
scientific committees can often be quite influential in steering societal decision making
processes. One such committee was asked to mediate in the deforestation crisis which
has emerged in the Canadian Pacific province of British Columbia.
In British Columbia, in the past few years a large societal conflict has arisen because
of the planned large-scale cutting of ancient rainforests. According to some researchers,there was not sufficient scientific rationale for the management approach existing prior
to the publication of the panel reports (Darling, 1995). In 1993, the conflict culminated
in the arrest and conviction of hundreds of people blocking logging roads to the forests
in Clayoquot Sound on Vancouver Island. To resolve the crisis, the provincial
government then appointed a scientific panel to write a series of reports on how to
define new land management policies (Scientific Panel on Clayoquot Sound, 1994-95).
The recommendations were used to partially revise the initial land use decision, but
some claim that important issues of conflict were still left out or not adequately
addressed in a proper way in the final versions of the reports  (GRNSD, 1995).
In the Clayoquot case, two world views clash: the conservative scientific perspective
on forestry as an industrial activity, and a more holistic ecological view, such as
advocated by the school of ecoforestry. These world views may in principle be
incommensurable, as they use `different vocabularies' (Darling, 1995).  One particular
suggestion for improvement of the research approach used by the Scientific Panel is that
there should have been more emphasis on contrasting  analyses of issues (Hammond-
Flavelle, 1995). This seems a valid criticism, considering a tell-tale footnote remark in
the fourth (March 1995) of the Scientific Panel reports: "The Panel's protocol is
characterized by respect for one another, for different values, and for data founded both in
scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge. This respect enabled the Panel to be
unanimous in its recommendations" (our emphasis).  However, if the values of panel
members, and the stakeholders they represent, are different, perhaps even incommen-
surable, it is not clear at all why respect for these values would have to lead to
unanimity. The Panel "recognizes tensions among subsistence, development, and
protection values" and "seeks harmony among these tensions". This focus on harmony
explains why the Panel can regard itself as respectful to all values involved, while some
inadequately represented stakeholders have an different view.
This example shows two things. Firstly, consensus or unanimity cannot be a preset
goal of any group report which is truly scientific rather than political. Rationality
should be the goal, and this may lead to consensus or not. Secondly, there is a difference
between trying to respect different values and views by integrating them into a single
framework, and by allowing the people involved to make their own point. Thus,
scenario-presenting group reports produced in open research networks could prove to be
useful at least as a complementary instrument to give rational scientific advise in these
kinds of conflictuous situations (An attempt was made at producing such a group report
on this case in a project group of the Global Research Network on Sustainable
Development - http://infolabwww.kub.nl:2080/grnsd/).
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
The key idea underlying this paper is that a method which focuses on the definition
of a group artifact in terms of social constraints, gives groups of users a vehicle for
focused discussion of the essential configurations and combinations of otherwiseseemingly abstract and unrelated information and communication processes. In this way,
a real network information system instead of just a loose set of tools can be designed.
5.0 REFERENCES
J. Darling, "Being There - The Clayoquot Biosphere Project", Rain - Journal of the
Clayoquot Biosphere Project, pp.3-4, June 1995.
A. de Moor, "Toward a More Structured Use of Information Technology in the Research
Community", The American Sociologist, Vol. 27, No.1, pp.91-101, Spring 1996a.
A. de Moor, "Coordinating the Specification Process of Information Systems for
Research Networks: Methodological Design Principles". In Proceedings of the 14th
International Association of Management Conference, Toronto, August 2-6 1996b.
Proceedings of the First GRNSD Workshop: Refocusing Research on B.C. Forests and
Forestry, Global Research Network on Sustainable Development (GRNSD),
University of Victoria, August 12, 1995.
J. Habermas, Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit, 1962. Discussion in English in New
German Critique, No.3, Fall 1974.
J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.1. Translated by Thomas
McCarthy, Beacon Press, Boston, 1984.
H. Hammond, A. Flavelle, "Major Points from an Initial Analysis of the Reports of the
Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound", International
Journal of Ecoforestry, Vol.11, No.2-3, 1995.
T. Harrison, T. Stephen, "On-Line Disciplines: Computer-Mediated Scholarship in the
Humanities and the Social Sciences", Computers and the Humanities, Vol. 26, No.3,
pp.181-193, 1992.
P. Johnson, C. Moore, Investigating Strong Collaboration with the Annotated Egret
Navigator, Technical Report CSDL-94-20, Dept. of Information and Communication
Sciences, University of Hawaii, 1994.
H. Sachs, "Computer Networks and the Formation of Public Opinion: an Etnographic
Study", Media, Culture & Society, Vol.17, No.1, pp.81-99, 1995.
The Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound, Report
Series, Cortex Consultants Inc., Victoria, 1994-95.

Being There - The Clayoquot Biosphere Project&quot;, Rain -

Computer Networks and the Formation of Public Opinion: an Etnographic Study&quot;,

Coordinating the Specification Process of Information Systems for Research Networks: Methodological Design Principles&quot;.

Investigating Strong Collaboration with the Annotated Egret Navigator,

Major Points from an Initial Analysis of the Reports of the Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound&quot;,

On-Line Disciplines: Computer-Mediated Scholarship in the Humanities and the Social Sciences&quot;,

Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit,

The Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound, Report Series, Cortex Consultants Inc.,

The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.1. Translated by Thomas McCarthy,

Toward a More Structured Use of Information Technology in the Research Community&quot;,

The role of social constraints in the design of research network information systems.

The role of social constraints in the design of research network information systems.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics