I was pleased to learn last week that the workshop that Brian Marick and I proposed for Agile 2009 has been accepted. It’s titled “Idea Factory”; since that link goes to a page behind a login barrier, I’ll just reproduce the description here.
Summary
Ever heard a programmer say “I think the code’s trying to tell us something”? A joke, right? A metaphor. There’s a social world, where people tell people things, and there’s a world of objects that, at most, exert passive pressure.
But what if we deny that the two worlds are separate? What if we treat everything as a moving mashup of objects, ideas, individuals, and groups? This workshop will present some recent perspectives from sociology on that question, and will ask participants the following: if you believed in one of those perspectives, what would you do differently on your project?
Process/Mechanics
We will repeat the following N times:
- We will summarize a theory from sociology. During the summary, the two moderators will talk to each other as a way to encourage the audience to ask clarifying questions.
- The introduction to the next section is: “OK. Lay aside your skepticism. Assume the theory is true. What should you do differently on your project? Shout out ideas.”
- Like a brainstorming session, our goal is not to criticize ideas but to generate them. Unlike a brainstorming session, we’ll allow discussion of an idea with the aim of understanding it better or building upon it. We’ll also allow clarifying questions about the theory itself.
- The discussion will continue until it begins to die down. The moderators will try to cut it short a little before people are fully ready to move on. (“Always leave them wanting more.”)
The exact workshop mechanics will depend on the crowd. If the crowd is small enough and lively enough, we’ll work as a single group. If that appears infeasible or doesn’t seem to be generating enough ideas, we’ll move into small group discussions with the moderators circulating through the groups answering or asking questions and helping people generate ideas. (Because of the latter possibility, we’ll want seating in the rounds.)
It’s entirely likely we won’t exhaust our fund of theories. That’s OK. (“Always leave them wanting more…”)
Learning outcomes
- Callon & Latour’s actor-network theory
- Star & Greisemer’s boundary objects
- Galison’s trading zones
- Fujimura’s packages
Post Revisions:
This post has not been revised since publication.
I spent a tiny segment of a conversation with Simon from Chungking Espresso trying to explain where ANT differs from most social theory. I don’t think I can explain it without a tremendous amount of background. But then, i’m stuck on Sociology as it is the enormous influential body of work in my life.
For people that don’t know social theory, how are you explaining ANT? I ask only because I spent the past 4 months trying to get it and I think that i’ve only skimmed the surface.
5/17/2009 @ 8:41 pm
To be honest, I don’t know yet how we’ll explain it, either. Or even in how much detail we’ll go into ANT; I’m more familiar with Latour’s Politics of Nature work, so we may go that route. We’ll see; I’m sure bits of preparation will show up here as the conference draws closer.
5/19/2009 @ 8:15 pm
For the paper I turned in this semester, i tried to overview the nuts and bolts of actor network theory from Reassembling the Social, if you are interested I can send it to you. I ordered the Politics of Nature. I am looking forward to it. Currently, i’m reading Hacking’s: The Social Construction of What?
5/20/2009 @ 12:05 pm
Sure, that would be great! If you don’t have my e-mail, it’s listed on my home page (linked to on the sidebar).
5/20/2009 @ 12:15 pm
I was just looking through my co-presenter Brian Marick’s website, and he’s written some useful posts on the subject – see the series here: http://www.exampler.com/blog/2007/11/06/latour-table-of-contents/
5/22/2009 @ 10:11 am