CSE 175 Homework Notes
Assignment #1
Generally no problems with question #2 (politics in an IT workplace); examples
cited: conflict between marketing/design branches, gender relations, various
types of resources (funding, promotion, status, office space, etc.)
Question #1 was problematic for some:
" a couple failed to
recognize TD as a critique, i.e. that these sorts of claims are
problematic;
" many needed to elaborate somewhat, point out exactly
why these were TD claims, and the sorts of other factors they neglected.
Assignment #2
Question #1: People had some difficulty laying out what the causal logic was
in some of the quotes they suggested. Some also failed to illustrate how the
claim oversimplified a complex situation (e.g. by noting other possible causal
/ contextual factors). YOU HAVE TO DO THIS - it is not enough just to attach
the article.
Question #2: People generally did better with this one, though the best
answers showed how the technical and social were caught up in each other,
rather than separating them off (giving lists of technical phenomena, then
lists of social phenomena).
Bonus question: A few of you attempted this, with mixed results. There
were a couple of very good responses, that showed a solid understanding of the
concept of metaphor - others misused the term, failing to see what was
specific in the arguments around metaphor (i.e. NOT just another case of tech
determinism).
Assignment #3
Question #1: People on the whole did an adequate job with this one, though
some of you needed to add some brief description to explain how values were
embedded in your narrative (i.e. go beyond just drawing the chart). Be
sensitive too to evaluative elements embedded in narrative clauses (seen in
such things as choice of adjectives, etc.). A few people encountered
difficulty by choosing research articles to analyze - remember that this kind
of analysis is really best suited for narratives of personal experience, and
may or may not be applicable to more formalized written styles.
Question #2: Generally well done, though some of you needed to reflect
somewhat more on the types of ethical arguments you yourself were drawing on,
as specified in the assignment.
Assignment #4
Some interesting responses in this set, and generally well done. Point by
point:
Question #1: This was generally quite well done, though a cautionary note
to recognize nurses as a specific occupational group with specific
professional interests - a few of you tended to line this up as doctor
privilege vs. patient interests, with nurses as the disinterested advocates of
patients. Medical work environments are complex places - you should be aware
of the professional interests of a variety of occupational groups…
Question #2: Okay, but be sure to address the question of universalization
(really the heart of the categorical imperative): Would I want to live in a
world in which this ethical principle universally applied? If you can cite
exceptions to the rule, mitigating circumstances, etc. then the rule is
disproved, according to the logic of the categorical imperative.
Question #3: Very interesting responses. A few people had some
difficulties with consistency (e.g. arguing that the programmer was
responsible for the 'downstream' implications of his work in part b, but
saying he had no business to interfere in part a; this isn't an impossible
position, but the apparent contradiction should be recognized and
addressed). One of the interesting questions on which the ethical question
seemed to hang had to do with who the 'real' designer of the system was - is
the programmer just a cog, mechanically implementing the ideas which are
effectively designed by others, or is the programmer the chief agent and
mover, and therefore responsible for the uses/outcomes of his system? BTW,
while most of you thought the programmer was wrong to act as he did, about 20%
agreed with his actions…
Assignment #5
A few people failed to recognize that 'as if by magic' resulted not just from
the operation of technical work and expertise, but also various bits of social
work that go into making systems work apparently seamlessly.
On the third part, 'who does this work', most of you correctly noted the
important roles of 'men in grey suits', official standard setting bodies, etc.
A few also astutely pointed out that the work of classification (including the
work of accepting, contesting, and reconfiguring previous acts of
classification) is in fact distributed more widely, carried out in part by the
end users of systems, and those marginal to system operations (which ties in
to the question of residual categories).
Assignment #6
This assignment was generally well done, and many of you produced extremely
detailed and well thought out sociograms of the Nicaraguan briquette story
(including acknowledgement of one-way and failed translations - nice job!).
The question of identifying values in the network proved more elusive. Recall
in general that values needn't be restricted to the express wishes and goals
of human actors, but are frequently (and powerfully) conveyed at the level of
design. Values such as efficiency, equity, conservation, etc. can be 'written
into' the non-human actants within the actor-network…
Assignment #7
People did a fair job with this one, though several of you needed to provide
more detailed readings of the ethical issues and the methodological debates
raised by the science wars. The Goguen and the Collins pieces are useful
sources in this regard, and several of you drew effectively on them to develop
very thoughtful and nuanced readings of the Sokal affair and subsequent
controversies. BTW, about 80% of the class thought that Sokal acted
incorrectly, or at least in bad faith, and violated important codes of trust,
although a minority within that 80% also thought his 'experiment' nevertheless
raised important issues worthy of discussion. About 20% felt Sokal was for
the most part in the right, and made a telling, if not entirely conclusive,
point.
Assignment #8
Mixed results on this assignment. A generally solid reading of the
contradictions of freedom posed by Agre (and Posner), though a number of you
needed to read Agre's arguments re: substantive vs. formal conceptions of
freedom somewhat more closely. A generally good grasp on the principle of
transparency associated with the panopticon (which several of you correctly
noted was originally a model of prison architecture, and more recently a
general figure for a particular kind of relationship between knowledge and
power within social theory).
Assignment #9
With a few notable exceptions, this assignment was generally less well done.
Several of you failed to understand the nature of Geer's distinction between
risk and security - and so were unable to give a good account of the troubles
with DigiCash (this is an important point - be sure to go back over this until
you understand it). Mixed results on the Raymond question. Several of you
roughly identified the myths outlined by Raymond, but failed to provide an
explanation for WHY these are myths, according to Raymond. Be careful too to
explain the tragedy of the commons as what social scientists would call a
collective action problem - how to deal responsibly and sustainably with
shared resources, when every individual actor has the incentive to 'cheat' and
take from the commons without putting back into it. Why DOESN'T this apply to
open source, according to Raymond?
Last modified: Mon Dec 1 16:16:51 PST 2003