Socio-Technical System: Trust and Identity in Socio-Technical Gap - Coursework Example

SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM: TRUST AND IDENTITY IN SOCIO-TECHNICAL GAP The concern regarding socio-technical gap will continue as the fast phase development of computer technology continue side by side with its increasing number of users. The study is significant since the intertwined relation between society and technology continues to define contemporary human condition and at the same time opens new forms of human relations and threats to these relations. Being such, understanding and bridging the gap are important. And one of the ways to bridge it is via trust. Trust is a complex social phenomenon that is necessary in all social transactions since it is the subtle principle that underlies all human-to-human interaction regardless whether it is transpiring in the social realm or in virtual world. The following are the findings of the study. 1.Trust is essential regardless whether human-to-human transaction transpires in the socio-physical world or in the virtual world.2The necessity of identity depends on the system that uses it.3Trust in the socio-physical world necessitates identity while trust established in the virtual world necessitates reputation and does not regard identity as penultimate factor. 4. Trust is necessary in bridging the socio-technical gap. In the end as trust builds, socio-technical gap will slowly narrow down. 1.0. INTRODUCTION The contemporary period is marked by changes and challenges that are known and encountered only in the story of humanity within this period. Globalization, rapid advancements and developments in science and technology, fast advancements in computer technology, developments in medical technology, ageing population and other similar changes are happening across the globe (Soros, 2002; Stolfo et al, 2008; Purser, 2004;Calder & Watkins, 2008). Furthermore, the contemporary period is also characterized by rapid information exchanges; thereby, redefining the role of information, making it central and vital in organisations and in almost all contemporary human interactions (Calder & Watkins, 2008). As such, this period is known not only as the era of globalisation where trade barriers among and between nations have been minimised if not totally removed but it is also considered as the era of information (Calder & Watkins, 2008). One of the most important factors that contributed to the rapid exchanges of information is the fast phase advancements in computer technology (Purser, 2004). Computer has reinvented itself in such a way that computer systems progress “from hardware in the 1950s and 1960s, to commercial information processors in the 1970s, to personal computers in the 1980s, to computers as communication tools in the 1990s. At each stage, system performance increased” (Whitworth, 2006:533). In effect, “Each decade computing has reinvented itself, going from hardware to software, from software to HCI, and now from HCI to social computing” (Whitworth, 2009: 394). Moreover, as computer technology continues to develop, its structures and frameworks have increasingly become the arena wherein social interactions and connections between people transpire. Hence, the interrelation and interconnection between human beings and computer technology has become one of the primordial attributes of the human condition of the contemporary period. This phenomenon is known as socio-technical system. The term socio-technical system was coined out from the works of Eric Trist and Fred Emery of the Tavistock Institute, London (Stranks, 2007). It was the result of the “1950’s manufacturing cases where the needs of technology confronted those of local communities” (Whitworth, 2009: 394). As such, the term is primarily understood in organizational structures as “an approach to complex organisational work design that recognizes the interaction between people and technology in workplaces. The term also refers to the interaction between society’s complex infrastructures and human behaviour. Within this concept, society itself and most of its substructures, are complex socio-technical systems” (Stranks, 2007:100). Furthermore, the whole concept is based on a general systems theory, which supports the notion that each part is integral and autonomous yet at the same time interdependent in lieu of their mutual interactions. Moreover, the system is not reduced to its parts or the parts into the whole system. Rather it seeks to address and understand any variations or concerns that arise from the mutual interactions of the parts. (Whitworth, 2009). However, one important dichotomy manifests itself as socio-technical system permeates the life of the society – the socio-technical gap. The socio-technical gap is the seeming incongruence between what society wants and needs and what computer technology offers (Whitworth, 2009). This happens because most computer technologies develop without clear parameters of the social wants or the logic and history of the society (Whitworth, 2006; 2009). In this regard, the human dimension is trivialised as the technical systems become more dominant, thereby, enhancing and widening the gap between the two (Kling & Star, 1998; Whitworth, 2006). In this sense, if the contemporary human condition is characterised by the interconnection and continued interrelation between human-social dimension on one-hand and computer technological advancements on the other, then there is a necessity to clarify and elucidate the problem regarding socio-technical gap in terms of some of its facets –trust and identity. The conceptual clarification of these concepts is essential not only because it is vital in the understanding of the contemporary human condition. Also because, current socio-technical systems built on cyber space opens new forms of human relations and threats to these relations. This becomes more significant as browsers are “becoming the universal platform on which end users launch information searches, email, multimedia file transfer, discussion groups, and many other Internet, intranet, and extranet applications. Their online use seems likely to increase, as such transactions become even more commonplace” (Mihanda & Whitworth, 2005: 370). In this regard, this topic involves all the stakeholders of this issue and that it is an important matter of concern because of the continued increasing number of computer users worldwide and of the unabated fast phase advancements in computer technology. Likewise, addressing and understanding the reality of the gap opens the possibility of the human dimension no longer trivialized and the technical/technological dimension no longer perceived as being removed and isolated from physical reality. The following section of the paper will be dealing with the literature review of the issue. 2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. HUMAN SOCIETY: A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE Since the ancient period, understanding the origin, rudiments, and dynamics of the society has pegged the interests of thinkers (e.g. The Republic). In fact, until now, there is an incessant effort in trying to lay the down principles and guidelines that will enable human beings to know and gain a clearer perception of the society where they belong (Babb, 2002). In most discourses pertinent to society, there are four basic principles that serve as the foundation in understating it. These are first, the predominant assumption regarding human nature and agency (Gardner, 1999). This presupposes an assumption pertinent to human nature. It accepts as a truism the notion that human beings are embodied, rational beings who are capable of making decisions, understanding the context or condition that they find themselves and at the same time capable of acting on the decision that they have come up with (Gardner, 1999; Ricoeur, 1992). This presupposition is commonly perceived as inherent in human nature (Gardner, 1999). Moreover, this attribute is claimed to be present in each individual person who have existed, is existing and is to exist. The second assumption is the presence of other human beings who share and posses the same human nature (Ricoeur, 1992). The third is the reality of the human world, which refers not only to the world that is created by the human hands but also to the physical reality that defines and redefines human nature and human condition (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). The fourth presupposition is the presence of institutions that helps regulate human interactions in order to maintain and sustain peace and order in the society (Ricoeur, 1992). Fig 1 WORLD WORLD HUMAN EXPERIENCE I OTHERS INSTITUTIONS SAME HUMAN NATURE IDENTITY KNOWLEDGE WORLD WORLD Figure 1 shows in a very simplistic manner the intricate relation present in the society. The individual human person has an interpersonal relationship with other human beings and a relation with institutions that society itself has created in order to maintain peace and order. In addition, the world serves as the fertile ground with which all these relations are connected and interacted. Thus, providing humanity with human experience, knowledge and a solid foundation with which one can define one’s identity. In this regard, identity is not just the name. Rather, it becomes a distinguishing attribute of the person, as the individual person tries assert his/her self in the midst numerous differentiated persons within the social sphere. This notion becomes more significant as the relations establish by the individual, whether with other human beings or institutions, is grounded on the salient principle of trust, which assumes that others will not intentionally harm the person but will in fact act and seek for the attainment of the common good (Abdul-Rahman & Hailes, 2000). Trust is a social phenomenon (Abdul-Rahman & Hailes, 2000) wherein “trusting a person means believing that when offered the chance, he or she is not likely to behave in a way that is damaging to us, and trust will typically be relevant when at least one party is free to disappoint the other, free enough to avoid a risky relationship, and constrained enough to consider that relationship an attractive option. In short, trust is implicated in most human experience, if of course to widely different degrees” (Gambetta, 2000, p 219). Moreover, there are different degrees and levels trust. These are: 1. the interpersonal trust which is the kind of trust that you with your family, friends and relatives.2. The system trust is trust that one gives to institutions or social systems. And 3. the last kind of trust is dispositional trust which is the basic trust that one has towards other that the others will not intentionally harm the person but will seek and act towards the common good (Abdul-Rahman & Hailes, 2000). And how does trust and identity relates with one another in the social sphere? Fig 2 Figure 2 shows the complex relation that existing among identity, trust and society. Identity is necessary as one presents one’s self in the society, trust becomes necessary since in the presence of others “we usually expect or believe that they will comply with our expectations, ‘be fair, honest, and reasonable in their dealings with us’ (Solomon and Flores, 2001 as cited in Khodyakov, 2007, p 121). However, in the contemporary period, human interaction is no longer just transpiring within the socio-physical realm. Human interactions are also happening in virtual communities in the virtual reality. 2.2. VIRTUAL COMMUNITY: A NEW PLATFORM FOR TRUST AND IDENTITY E-society is a contemporary development resulting from the fast phase advancements in computer technology and the desire to make easy access to necessary services. E-society is a wide-range “applications from e-government, e-democracy, and e-business to e-learning and e-health” (Magoulas, Lepouras & Vassilakis, 2006, p 1), all of which are being transacted in the digital domain. This is made possible since the underlying principle that supports the structure of e-society in the virtual world and the virtual world itself is the computing infrastructure. Computing infrastructure covers both the hardware technologies as well as the software and communication mediums (Brooke et al, 2004). Moreover, this is an important development primarily because the system is designed in order to facilitate human- human interactions. In effect, “virtual societies can be developed from: 1.Immersive worlds with avatars, e.g., multiuser dungeons (MUDs), first person shooters. 2. Information exchange systems, e.g., peer-to-peer (P2P), computer supported cooperative work (CSCW), chat rooms, and search engines such as Google. 3. Monetary exchange, e.g., auction houses such as Ebay, bartering systems (credit unions and online classifieds listings), or PayPal. These can be subsumed within the previous category if money is taken to be just another kind of information. 4. Shared execution environments (operating systems); and, on a wider scale, Grid computing” (Brooke et al, 2004, p 4). In this regard, if in the virtual world human-to-human interaction is actually happening then anonymity, unfairness, cheating and distrust should be avoided as these behaviours contribute to the collapse of the interaction and a certain level of trust should be encouraged in order to facilitate cooperation (Gambetta, 2000). However, how can trust be established in the virtual world? Establishing trust in the virtual world depends on the system. What does this mean? Brooke (2004) highlights the importance of avatars as a point for individuation and identification in online games since they serve as virtual identities. However, he also claims that there is a seeming problem with this context of identity since a single human person may control several avatars thus “having a single (real) physical identity, but multiple virtual identities” (Brooke, 2004, p 6) is allowed in the virtual world. In the physical world, however, having multiple identities is sign of psychological illness or if intentionally done deceit. This results in the fluidity of identity. It becomes dependent on the context and system (Brooke, 2004). As such, though identity is vital in the physical and social realm, virtual worlds with virtual identities, is no longer essential in establishing trust. However, he claims that reputation is essential since it determines whether players will continue playing with another gamer that has a reputation of being a cheat or a customer dealing with a known internet agent who does not deliver. On the other hand, Cheung & Lee (2000) in a study conducted regarding trust in internet shopping claim that trust in the vendor is the result of the combination of the reputation of the vendor in terms of protecting and securing the information of the customer and integrity of the vendor in the virtual world. In the same manner, the external environment, which refers to third party recognition and the legal framework of the physical and social spheres, increases the confidence of the vendee vis-a-vis perceived risk. This manifest the reality that the reputation and integrity of the vendor is more important compared with the notion of identity in the virtual world. Abdul –Rahman & Hailes (2000), likewise, have conducted a study regarding trust in virtual communities. Although they have limited their discussion on interpersonal trust, they have come up a trust model with which they have concluded that experience and reputation are the primary factors that will establish and enhance trust in the virtual world. FIG 3 This figure shows that trust in virtual world technically necessitate a good reputation, which is attained base how one has interacted with others in virtual world or communities. Identity is not as an important factor in the virtual world as it is in the socio-physical world because identity in the virtual world does not necessarily entail single individuation. Rather, the digital domain allows multiple identities by a single user, which deconstructs the socio-physical understanding of identity. In this sense, although the factors that contribute to the establishment of trust is different in the virtual world compared with that of the socio-physical world, what is observable is the fact that establishing trust in the virtual world is still as necessary as it is in the socio –physical world for “if we are not prepared to bank on trust, then the alternatives in many cases will be so drastic, painful, and possibly immoral that they can never be lightly entertained. Being wrong is an inevitable part of the wager, of the learning process strung between success and disappointment, where only if we are prepared to endure the latter can we hope to enjoy the former. Asking too little of trust is just as ill advised as asking too much” (Gambetta, 2000, p 235). 2.3. SOCIO-TECNICAL GAP: TRUST AND IDENTITY Human interactions regardless whether it transpires in the socio-physical sphere or in virtual world, necessitate the creation of the arena where trust between and among the members of the society can grow and foster. This is essential since trust underlies all human social interaction, as such, vital in the flourishing of human interaction (Khodyakov, 2007). Whether it is thick trust, the trust that is given when one enters into interpersonal relationship or weak trust the kind of trust given to institutions or other persons, trusting others that they will not intentionally seek to harm and destroy you but are willing to enter into a collaborative action with you in order to further good is more often than not beneficial to the agent rather than detrimental. Trusting computing infrastructure that it will become more human centred and responsive to the socio-physical needs of the society opens the possibility of encouraging engineers to develop technology that is not just rooted in the laboratories but is anchored on social needs (Whitworth, 2006; 2009). This is not a blind leap of faith, but it is a trust anchored on experiences and current necessity of social evolution (Khodyakov, 2007). This is claimed based on the premise that if computer technological advancements are integral part of the socio-physical human condition, it is but necessary that society trust it, accepts it and constructs and deconstructs it in such a way that it affirms human agency and it increasingly becomes human centred (Kling & Star, 1998). Technical systems on the other hand, if it seeks to pursue continued growth, then it must satisfy and be responsive to social needs. For only in this way that a symbiotic relation built on trust can be established between society and technology. And, thus slowly bridge the gap. There is no way and no sense in perpetuating the socio-technical gap for such an act is detrimental both to the society and to technology (Kling & Star, 1998; Whitworth, 2006; 2009; Brooke, 2004). This position is claimed even if trust in the socio-physical world and trust in the virtual reality may require different factors for its establishment (Abdul-Rahman & Hailes, 2000; Cheung & Lee, 2000; Brooke, 2004) In the end, the following points are raised. 1. Trust is essential regardless whether human-to-human transaction transpires in the socio-physical world or in the virtual world. 2. The necessity of identity depends on the system that uses it. 3. Trust in the socio-physical world necessitates identity while trust established in the virtual world necessitates reputation and does not regard identity as penultimate factor. 4. Trust is necessary in bridging the socio-technical gap. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Trust as a social phenomenon is complex and has continued to incur the interests of thinkers since the ancient period. In the contemporary period, changes in the human condition has been significant in such a way that society is no longer confined within the parameters of the social and the physical realm, but that the reality of virtual world is a fact. In this regard, virtual world or virtual society opens to humanity the chance to experience warping from one dimension to another. However, this situation is not without concerns. As there is the continued increase in computer users and developments in computing technology remains fast, the socio-technical gap widens. This gap is the result of technology failing to meet social needs. This is a huge concern since computing infrastructures have become the arena for human-to-human interactions, as such, it becomes a venue of social interaction. In this regard, computing technologies should develop infrastructure that will make it more human centred and more cognizant of the needs of the society. A continued denial of the interconnected and intertwined relation between society and technology is detrimental not only to society or to technology but to the entire humanity. Being such, the first step that must be undertaken is to bridge the gap with trust. Trust, though wide in scope and complex in itself, allows society and technology to meet in such a way that the social becomes technical and the technical becomes social. This means that society will learn to trust technology in such a way it sees it as a beneficial partner in the pursuit of the good human life. While, technology on the other hand, will see society as the solid and concrete background from where the benefits and goods of all developments should come from and redound. In this regard, any differences in the elements of trust should not be seen as a hindrance but as an intrinsic difference, that highlights the distinction between a virtual society and society. As such, the researcher impugns that in the next five years; there will be an increase in an increase in computer technology that is more responsive to human and social needs. This will happen as teh symbiotic relation between society and technology becomes more entrenched. Furthermore, as computing technology continues to advance, the need to come up with rules that are cognizant of the thousands of years of human history and tradition will become a challenge. Moreover, the demand for development of human-centred system will increase not only in terms of organisational demands but also in terms of bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. Finally, the gap between society and technology will slowly narrow as socio-technical systems consciously address concerns pertinent to socio-technical gap.(3500 WORDS) REFERENCES: Abdul-Rahman, A., & Hailes, S. (2000). ‘Supporting trust in virtual communities’, Proceedings of the 33rd annual Hawaii International Conference, System Sciences, Vol. 1, 1 – 10. Babb, G. (2002). ‘Where the bodies are buried: Cartesian dispositions in narrative theories of character’, Narrative, Vol. 10, No 3, 195 – 221. Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). ‘Social network sites : Definition, history, and scholarship’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 13(1), Brooke, P. J., Paige, R.F., Clark, J.A., & Stepney, S. (2004). ‘Playing the game: Cheating, loopholes and virtual identity’, ACM SIGCAS Computer and Society, Vol. 3, Iss 2, 1 – 12. Calder, A. & Watkins, S. (2008). IT Governance: A manager’s guide to data security and ISO27001/ISO27002 4th Ed. London: Kogan Page. Cheung, C., & Lee, M.K.O. (2000). ‘Trust in internet shopping: A proposed model and measurement instrument’, AMCIS 2000 Proceedings. Dwyer, K., Hiltz, S. R., & Widmeyer, G. (2008). ‘Understanding development and usage of social networking sites: The social software performance model’, Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. Gambetta, D. (2000). ‘Can we trust trust?’. In D. Gambetta (ed.) Trust:Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, UK: Oxford Press. Pp 213 – 237. Gardner, S. (1999). Kant and The Critique of Pure Reason. London: Routledge. Khodyakov, D. (2007). ‘Trust as a process: A three-dimensional approach’, Sociology, Vol. 41(1), 115 – 132. Kling, R., & Star, L. (1998). ‘Human-centered systems in the perspective of organizational and social informatics’, Computers and Society, 28(1), 22 - 29. Leder, Drew. (1990). ‘Flesh and blood: A proposed supplement to Merleau-Ponty’, Human Studies. 13, 209 – 219. Mahinda, E., & Whitworth, B. (2005) ‘The web of system performance: Extending the TAM model’, Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Nebraska, USA. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. (1962). The Phenomenology of Perception. Trans by, Colin Smith, New Jersey: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Purser, S. (2004). A practical guide in managing information security. Boston: Artech House. Ricoeur, Paul. (1992). Oneself as Another. Trans. By Katherine Blarney. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Soros, G. (2002). George Soros on Globalization. New York: Open Society Institute Stillman, L., & Linger, H. (2009). ‘Community informatics and information systems: can they be better connected?’, The Information Society, Vol. 25, Iss 4,255 -264. Stranks, J. (2007). Human Factors and behavioural safety. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd. Stolfo, S, Bellovin, SM & Hershkop, S. (2008). Insider attack and cyber security: beyond the hacker volume 39 of advances in information security, London: Springer. Whitworth, B. (2005). ‘Polite computing’, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 24, No. 5, 353 – 363. Whitworth, B. (2006). ‘Socio technical systems’. In C. Ghaoui (Ed), Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction (pp. 533 – 541). UK: Liverpool John Moores University. Whitworth, B. (2009). ‘A brief introduction to Sociotechnical systems’, In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed), Encyclopedia of Information, Science and Technology, Second Edition, (pp 394 – 400). Whitworth, B., Bañuls, V., Sylla, C., & Mahindra, E. (2008) ‘Expanding the criteria for evaluating socio-technical software’, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART A: SYSTEMS AND HUMANS, VOL. 38, NO. 4, 777 – 790. Read More