You look pretty much
the same as I
and our alphabet begins
with an "A" and even our
words
show the same
slant
when scrawled on a
page
But I don't understand how you
see
the world from behind
the screen when I look in from the
front
And I wonder
is there room for me back there
or for you out here
or maybe we can just
reach
around the boundaries and
meet
-- sjking, '97
INTRODUCTION
It's not the motorcycle maintenance, not the faucet. It's all of technology they can't take...all sorts of things started tumbling into place and I knew that was it. Sylvia's irritation at a friend who thought computer programming was "creative." All their drawings and paintings and photographs without a technological thing in them... Of course John signs off every time the subject of cycle repair comes up, even when it is obvious he is suffering for it. That's technology. And sure, of course, obviously. It's so simple when you see it. To get away from technology out into the country in the fresh air and sunshine is why they are on the motorcycle in the first place. For me to bring it back to them just at the point and place where they think they have finally escaped it just frosts both of them, tremendously. That's why the conversation always breaks and freezes when the subject comes up (Pirsig, 1974).
Technology, computers, bits and bytes -- "it's all of technology they can't take." But why? Who? In this emergent Information Age, information transfer has stolen the focus away from communication, an action that is in direct conflict with the post-modern organization's desire to expand lines of communication and understanding between people; a desire to form community wherever and however possible, even in the virtual world. While transfer of information is increasingly important, an emphasis on communication, collaboration and coordination issues becomes crucial in maintaining relationships in a high-tech world. The excerpt above from Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974) introduces conflicting reactions to technology, to the extent that "the conversation always breaks and freezes when the subject comes up" (p. 14). One of the relationships that has been consistently overlooked is the direct relationship between computer programmers (those who create software) and end users (those who use the software, possibly with little or no understanding of the programming).
The potential for a cultural division between people in the roles of programmer and user is high as technology becomes increasingly acceptable and even necessary as a mode of communication, coordination and collaboration, particularly in organizational settings. This is a significant issue not only for the "human-savvy" people, but also for the "techno-savvy" people, whose technological products rely on successful interaction with the users.
Through the use of survey, participant observation, textual analysis and my personal researcher journal, I use this practicum to bring the issue of communication back to the forefront of technology and interactions between software producers and users.
An Appreciative Approach
In this Action Research Practicum, I have intentionally used non-discriminatory and non-assuming rhetoric. For example, I use the phrase "those people in the roles of user or programmer" instead of defining two distinct groups of people with distinctly similar characteristics among group members. I do not assume that most users or most programmers can fit neatly into any category. However, some grouping is still necessary in order to effectively study similarities and differences between two perceived groups, and to study potential cultural divisions.
I have also chosen to focus on the perceived strengths (i.e. "human-savvy" and "techno-savvy") of the people filling each role, purposefully not using the depreciative, techno-dominant terms such as "non-technoliterate," "non-techies," "technophobes," or similar terms. The terms "human-savvy" and "techno-savvy" instead suggest a stronger affinity for one particular view of the world, yet allow for any individual to have proficiency and comfort in both views.
The other aspect of using an appreciative approach is researching not just the problematic interactions between people-savvy and techno-savvy people but also their successful interactions. I continue this appreciative approach through to the product of this practicum, expanding on the positive interactions to create a "handbook" of recommendations. It is still necessary to analyze the problematic interactions, but the recommendations grow from an expansion of the components of successful interactions rather than a focus on eliminating the negative components.
Although this appreciative terminology does not eliminate the use of categorization, it serves to remind me, as a researcher, to question my assumptions of the similarities and differences of the people and communications I study. Our American society is one of categorization and class distinctions, so I use this appreciative approach to facilitate a more inclusive and useful data gathering, interpretation of findings, and recommendations to both human-savvy and techno-savvy people.
HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES
This research grew out of my proposal that an in-depth study of the relational differences and similarities of people in the roles of programmer and user would show that this often-perceived gap is less dichotomous than either side of the communication struggle may assume. I found, however, evidence that continues to suggest that there is indeed a strong difference between the ways of thinking, so the bulk of my analysis continued with this finding in mind. Robert Pirsig (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 1974) draws distinctions between classical versus romantic ways of understanding, then bridges this gap with "quality" -- an identifiable, yet elusive concept and reality. This Action Research Practicum draws heavily upon both my own and Pirsig's philosophies of technology and quality and how differing world views color the understanding between different groups.
How Does Pirsig Fit In?
My original intent was to use Pirsig's book to build upon Quality as the starting point for a shared understanding, then work to draw together Pirsig's distinctions between classical and romantic ways of understanding. As my research progressed, however, I found it more useful and consistent with my own philosophies to apply both my own and Pirsig's insights without attempting to stay within the confines of a clearly-defined distinction of "classical" and "romantic." I instead pulled away from those labels and applied Pirsig's overall viewpoints to my research without restricting the application to two distinct groups. Through this in-depth study of different ways of understanding, I worked to parallel both my own and Pirsig's philosophies with the understandings and misunderstandings between human-savvy and techno-savvy individuals and groups.
My Relevant Journey
This practicum is particularly relevant to my current consulting work. I have daily interaction with "hard core" programmers who seem to have missed the concept of "care," other people who seem to have missed the concept of "technology," and still others who are either programmers or group specialists who do see care and Quality as inseparable. This care/Quality combination becomes the crux of possibility for shared understanding between the human-savvy and techno-savvy points of view. When I began this practicum, I thought that if I was persistent enough in explaining the techno-savvy viewpoint and language to the human-savvy people (and vice versa), they would eventually begin to understand each other without my translation and mediation help. I had hoped that the intersubjective (socially constructed) view of reality would magically emerge from a shared understanding between the human-savvy and techno-savvy person. Yet time after time, I explained this concept to that person and that concept to this person and the glimpses of intersubjective reality were few and fleeting -- because care (the requirement of relationship) was not present.
I have concluded, then, that in order to bring the human-savvy and techno-savvy viewpoints together, there must be an initial agreement that the interaction will be based on a shared foundation of care and Quality -- my "care/Quality theory." The following pages are my story of the intellectual, emotional , and at times even spiritual, journey which led me to this conclusion.
Is This Really an Issue?
This study advocates for recognition that the communication struggle between techno-savvy and human-savvy ways of understanding is a serious issue which warrants continued research attention, both at the individual and institutional levels. The following journal entry, which I wrote describing my own work experiences, shows the variety of issues involved with this dichotomy of viewpoints in interactions.
Tuesday, February 3, 1998
Well, here I go to fight in the trenches. I think about how perfect this frustrating situation is for my practicum, and I get weary. Is it really worth studying? What really is the purpose of having programmers and users understand each other? Does it follow my mission to have my job (and life) be "for the betterment of society"? I'm assuming this is a need to bring understanding. Is it really? Say I give up and leave this company to be with a group of folks who are FIRST and FOREMOST concerned with users. This will still be a successful company somehow. The user part will eventually have to be looked at closely or this company's services won't sell.
I really need to talk with User Interface Designers and see what they believe in. What got them into UID? Do they feel they work toward the "betterment of society"?
Louis [name changed to protect privacy], a programmer, doesn't seem to listen -- at least not to me. I don't think I'll get through to [Louis] by using my usual gentleness. Do I have to act like [Louis] (expert, answer person, over-enthusiastic) in order to be heard or/and understood? That hardly seems fair. Perhaps that's where some of my assumptions come from regarding programmers being "bad" and users being the "good oppressed"? Have I ever been in a situation where a programmer stopped to ask how I understood something to be? I get this vision of programmers always believing they're right. They work with concrete code that is easily proven as functional or not. Perhaps then it's a matter of a different definition of "right"? For me, right = what's most easily understood and helpful to the user. For a programmer, perhaps right = it works (i.e. not broken).
Alan [name changed] is always saying the infrastructure is the most important, then the speed, then the look of the product. Basically, make sure first it works, then it's fast enough, and LASTLY look at how it appears to the user. What about doing it in reverse order?
This software company builds software for the purpose of having the "lay person" be able to use it, yet technology has been the planning focus, with the usability details addressed as one of the "finishing touches" instead of being integrated into the development planning.
This Action Research Practicum uses research and data collection to build a strong case for the necessity of a greater recognized equality between human-savvy and techno-savvy viewpoints, both in organizational functioning and in our everyday lives.
Pirsig's Relevance to Modern Day Interactions
Although Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was published in 1974, it is clear that the same struggles of 1974 continue in 1998 between those who embrace that overarching entity called "technology" and those who dislike it for any number of reasons. Dr. Theodore Achacoso, author and expert in Medical Informatics, Neuroradiology, and Computational Neurobiology, suggests that human societies operate in a cyclical fashion, following the same societal behavioral patterns century after century; they simply appear to be greatly different because of the tools, or technologies, they use. Dr. Achacoso summarizes this aspect of his theory very simply: "There is a level of technology for each civilization." The cavemen used stones and wood to make their tools and weapons. We, centuries later, use electrical appliances, satellites, cellular phones, and of course, computers. We and the cavemen all use technology.
This cyclical view of civilizations is strongly supported through both Pirsig's views and my current-day research. Not only am I drawing from Pirsig's 24-year-old philosophies, but Pirsig himself draws heavily from 19th century philosophers in his 20th century book, both of which are helpful in analyzing my data. Although in 1998 "technology" is often equated with "computers," Pirsig uses a broader understanding which closely fits Webster's definition of technology as "the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization," and as "the terminology of the field." My research uses both the broad and more narrow definitions and associations of "technology" -- focused on interactions between individuals involving computers in some way, but using the broader connotations and societal understandings/perceptions of technology to provide clues for improving the more focused communications.
Theological Differences
Pirsig addresses these societal perspectives of technology early in his book, explaining the differences between human-savvy and techno-savvy by using the following analogy:
When you're talking birth control, what blocks it and freezes it out is that it's not a matter of more or fewer babies being argued. That's just on the surface. What's underneath is a conflict of faith, of faith in empirical social planning versus faith in the authority of God as revealed by the teachings of the Catholic Church. You can prove the practicality of planned parenthood till you get tired of listening to yourself and it's going to go nowhere because your antagonist isn't buying the assumption that anything socially practical is good per se. Goodness for him has other sources which he values as much as or more than social practicality (p. 10).
The differences in technological "theologies" run deep even in today's Information Age. Any conversations based on one's faith tend to be intense and high-charged, even when those people interacting are in complete agreement. Even pacifist (non-fighting) religious groups freely use war and fighting metaphors to show their seriousness about defending their faith!
My own data shows stories of frustration and stories of energizing times of shared understanding and connections between techno-savvy theologies and human-savvy theologies. Communication issues between techno-savvy and human-savvy people are conversations of faith and beliefs, and until these issues are recognized as potentially treading on sacred conversational ground, the theological viewpoints may split further and further apart. This practicum is my way of "sharing the faith" for both theologies, and advocating for a conversational space free of legalistic and fundamentalist principles. It's time for a new Age of Relationship to evolve beside the Information Age.
Pirsig continues this "theological" track, alluding also to a religious view of science (which has close ties with technology) through the following excerpt of Biblical references with a scientific twist:
In the temple of science are many mansions... and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them there.
Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, it would be noticeably emptier but there would still be some men of both present and past times left inside...(p. 97-98).
Pirsig follows with yet another example which links technology to religious beliefs:
I disagree with them about cycle maintenance, but not because I am out of sympathy with their feelings about technology. I just think that their flight from and hatred of technology is self-defeating. The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha -- which is to demean oneself (p. 16).
My researcher journal also reports this view of science as being on a privileged spiritual plane: "I'm so angry with him [a programmer]. Just because he's the code writer doesn't mean he's God!" A brief, even common statement, but well weighted toward the religiously fervent attitudes of both the techno-savvy and the human-savvy viewpoints.
Institutional Implications
Pirsig's paraphrase and references to Buddha lead us further to take into account the institutional influences that may affect the belief system of the individuals within that system and that structure. My research also dips into the broader organizational perspective, looking at the institutional structures that may shape the interactions between human-savvy and techno-savvy people. If organizations themselves have a significant role in making separate cultures for people in the roles of programmer and user, the blending "solution" will need to be more extensive then simply enhancing the understanding between these groups. Structural institutional changes may be necessary. This Action Research Practicum, then, has implications for continued study and organizational insights that could fundamentally change institutional structures and functioning.
Significance of this Research
Although there has recently been much focus on cultural diversity, the rift between people in the roles of computer programmer and user has received little formal attention, even in this Information Age where the interactions between the people in these two different roles is essential. The traditional solution to addressing the communication difficulties between these players in the growing field of technological advancement and communication is to provide a mediator between the two groups who understands the languages of both positions. While an interpreter's facilitation is useful, a more direct communication could be even more effective and efficient. The shortcomings of using an intermediary include reliance on indirect and relayed communication (resulting in potential miscommunication and information loss), asynchronous communication which lengthens response time and hinders the clarification process, and the overall process becomes time-consuming due to the intermediary communicative step in both directions.
If, instead, people in the roles of programmer and user are able to more directly and successfully interact with each other, the above-listed shortcomings need not be present. Enhanced interactions between the people in these differing roles can not only facilitate understanding, but can also work toward breaking down potentially alienating distinctions between the two groups (i.e. distinctions between "newbies" and "nerds," social differences, language differences, etc.). People in the roles of user and roles of programmer would benefit greatly from this change, and technology could then become less of a barrier and more of a connection and shared space for the two groups.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
The communication issues between people in the roles of user and programmer were studied through a multi-method approach. The different approaches are described below.
Survey
I posted a survey form on the Web to solicit opinions, insights, experiences and demographics of respondents. I created this Web site (using HTML and CGI) as part of my research product, both as a way to show my technical skills and competence and also as a way to easily gather and disseminate information.
This site consists of four pages:
1. A brief explanation of the purpose of this practicum, along with a request for the reader's input.
2. A Consent Letter to Participants to inform them that they have no obligations to finish the survey or to participate in my research, etc.
3. The survey itself, called a "Feedback Form" in order to lessen the formality of the researcher/participant roles. This form consisted of 23 questions, most of them open-ended questions asking the respondents to recall and relay incidents of a particular nature in which they were recently involved.
4. A Findings page on which I will display an abbreviated version of the results/conclusions/recommendations section of this project.
Survey Goal
My overall goal in developing the survey was to elicit stories, for it is through stories that themes emerge, language differences stand out, and both objective and subjective data can be gathered. For example, the question, "How would you describe your most recent interactions with your organization's technical support staff?" brought out stories that gave clues as to the tone of interactions with techno-savvy employees. Even if the respondent was one of the technical support staff, the question was useful in drawing out the techno-savvy person's view of the staff they are a part of, giving me a broader organizational culture perspective.
Survey Benefits
There are several benefits to using a Web survey for data gathering, the greatest of which is ease of gathering information from a large sample in a relatively short amount of time. Within seven days of requesting feedback through my practicum Website, I received 107 responses. Some of these responses were a result of participants forwarding my request to their co-workers, friends and family members.
Another benefit is the confidentiality of the answers. The CGI program I used collected the information submitted through the feedback form and sent it to me via email. This email did not include any information about the respondent's email address or IP address, so the only way for me, the researcher, to identify participants was if the participant included their name in their responses (which a few people did).
The number of respondents speaks highly for the convenience of answering a Web-based survey. I did not impose any deadlines, did not ask for any particular length of answers, and did not send any reminder messages. Although the survey consisted of 23, mostly open-ended questions (requiring a significant amount of typing), I had over 30% return rate within seven days.
Request for Participants
I believe my response success is due to a combination of respondents being able to answer the survey at their convenience, (with no mailing required), and the tone of my request. I took a chance of possibly being too "light-hearted" for the techno-savvy people, but since I was asking potentially human-savvy people to communicate with me via technology, I favored the human-savvy viewpoint in my request. I hoped that the use of technology to send the message, to create the Website, and to gather the responses would "validate" me in the eyes of the techno-savvy individuals. Below is a copy of the request I sent via email to potential respondents:
**********
Dear ___________,
For part of my Master's Degree practicum, I've put a questionnaire out on the Web, and I'd really appreciate you taking 15-20 minutes to fill it out. It won't be too painful or intense! :) It's at /sking/practicum (click on the "Feedback Form" link)
Come to think of it, this will give you a sneak preview of what I'm actually doing in graduate school!
All your responses are confidential, so you can have a heyday! :)
So, let's review:
1. Starla Needs YOU
2. You want to help Starla
3. You go to /sking/practicum
4. You click on the "Feedback Form" link
5. You have a blast answering interesting questions on the Web
6. You press the submit button
7. You smile the rest of the day, realizing that you've made Starla very very very happy.
Have a great day,
Starla
p.s. Also, feel free to pass this request onto anyone you know who has Internet access. Please stop short of spamming, though. ;)
**********
I soon removed the sentence regarding spamming, however, after receiving a kind nudge from one of the recipients: "I'll be glad to respond. Tell me though, being mostly a techno-rookie or newbie, what is spamming?" I realized through that incident just how easy it is to automatically use technological language -- what a great lesson!
Survey Disadvantages
A Web-based survey does, however, also have its disadvantages. By requesting that people input their responses via the Internet, I assumed a certain level of technological proficiency. This likely skewed the responses, since the respondents must have had at least enough of a respect for technology to make the effort and take the time to fill out an on-line survey. For the purposes of my study, however, I believe the Web-based survey conveniently targeted a very appropriate sample -- from those who have at least a minimal understanding of computers to those who are "experts" with computers.
Another disadvantage to using a Web-based survey is the limitations of text. While stories can still be richly told through the written word, helpful cues such as body language, voice tone and immediacy of response are lost through text. A written survey also relies on the writing skills of the respondents. Yet the beneficial part of using text is that the language of each person is captured, and the writing skills of the individual may also provide clues as to factors influencing the differences (and similarities) between human-savvy and techno-savvy people.
Interviews
I conducted informal, very loosely structured face-to-face interviews with programmers and users in my own organization. These sessions began with me describing my practicum, which began a conversation that led into a variety of relevant directions.
On-line Discussion
I also facilitated an on-line discussion group regarding issues of technologies in the workplace. This facilitation was done using Caucus on-line conferencing software (Ó ScreenPorch, http://www.screenporch.com) through MetaNet, a Web-based conference space provided by Metasystems Design Group, Inc. (MDG).
MDG hosted a month-long online conference, called the Knowledge Ecology Fair (KEFair), the archives of which are still available through MDG at http://www.tmn.com. One of the "rooms" of this virtual conference was called "Open Space Circle," in which all conference attendees (approximately 400) were authorized to start and facilitate their own online discussions.
I used that online space to start and facilitate a discussion called "Technology: Balancing the Different Views." I posted an introductory entry comment, and KEFair respondents then carried the discussion forward as they wished. Following is my initial comment:
08-FEB-98 13:19 Starla King
As I type this message, I'm listening to the radio, and two advertisements in a row were about using your computer to get information through the Internet. "Just two clicks away from purchasing your own ....", and "Been browsing the Web lately? Well, next time you're on the Web, look at www...." Seems to me there's a general assumption that everyone wants to use computers. Ah, how untrue.
I've been in graduate school (George Mason University, Fairfax, VA) for 16 months, and have seen firsthand the incredibly different responses and reactions to technology, even among my 20 grad. school colleagues (AND the professors!). This is particularly interesting, considering that we're in a new program -- the Program on Social and Organizational Learning -- which relies on technology for a chunk of the coursework/class meetings ("distance learning").
This use of collaborative computing was explicitly stated in the promotional materials for the program, yet one of the most controversial issues throughout the first year was whether or not there was an over-emphasis on using collaborative technologies. We used Lotus Notes for journaling and on-line discussions and routing draft documents. We took an Internet Literacy course in which we learned how to create our own Web pages using HTML. We learned about the nuances of intellectual property. We used Folio Views to read and write hypertext documents and to comment on texts.
I, for one, loved the technology and have since become almost enmeshed in computer communication with my job and school. Yet I'm a "people person."
So, why tell you all this? To show that this is a real issue. Computers allow us to share information almost instantly, but none of that capability is of any use if only a few of the people involved in the organization are willing enough/comfortable enough to use computers for communication and collaboration. Without a shared desire to use computers for knowledge sharing and creation, computers can easily become a tension point and group separator.
I've found many assumptions hovering around this issue of "people-savvy" vs. "techno-savvy" folks, the first one being that those two categories are most often mutually exclusive. This assumption is particularly problematic with fields such as Organizational Development (or, in my case, Organizational Learning) in which the consulting focus turns more and more toward the people and communication in an organization. If a people focus is deemed as incompatible with a computer/ technology focus, then we're stuck with a paradigm that re-inforces the "softness" of the people/communication skills.
How do we, then, learn to understand each other when we hold such different views on using computers for communication and collaboration?
This online conversation gave me a chance to hear the viewpoints of human-savvy people who embrace the use of computers for communication and interaction with others.
Participant Observation
I collected data through participant observation and virtual communication between myself and employees in a software development group.
For a period of three months, I viewed this organization daily through the framework of my practicum to gain an awareness of the validity of my assumptions regarding the human-savvy and techno-savvy viewpoints. I was part of staff meetings, planning sessions, work sessions, telephone conversations, consultant meetings and one-on-one conversations with the company's staff and partners, including programmers, the Chief Technology Officer (CTO)/President, and the Founder/Chairman of the company.
Researcher Journal
I kept a "Practicum Journal" to write down thoughts, incidents, learnings, questions, etc. that seem to relate to this whole human-savvy/techno-savvy interaction issue. Much of my journal was a written recording of my own experiences in my current consulting role. I used this journal to try to identify my own understanding of the issue, my assumptions about either way of viewing the word, and my assumptions about the interactions between the two groups. Every day at work, I am in the thick of this gap between the world views of programmers and myself, and am painfully aware of the struggle. This journal has given me a way to capture a rich description of my experiences and to validate my theories through themes of my own experience.
Using a personal, self-reflective journal is also symbolic of my human-savvy viewpoint combined with the methodology of Organizational Learning, which requires reflection and questioning of one's own assumptions. I found this methodology to be extremely insightful in pointing out areas in which my own world view and assumptions could block interactions with more techno-savvy people.
ANALYSIS
Key Issues
This study of language/communication issues between people in the roles of programmer and end user originally set out to identify:
· potentially different cultural models, categories, labels and language particularities of the two groups
· possible institutional structures which propagate miscommunications and misperceptions between and among those in programmer and user roles
· similarities between the two groups which can be built upon to enhance communication
· ways to enhance the effectiveness of techno-savvy/human- savvy interactions through use of a particular set of techniques
My results show understandings I gained in each of those areas, and the recommendations section explains applications of these understandings to both individual interactions and to organizational functioning. The combination of conversation analysis, discourse analysis, case studies and theoretical research helps show:
· how the differences and similarities between the programmers and users shape conversation between the two groups (which can be generalized to understanding communication differences between other groups with consistent communication difficulties)
· how conversation can be shaped differently in order to enhance communication and understanding between the people in those different roles.
PRESENTATION OF THE PROCESS AND RESULTS
Qualitative Approach
It is important to note that my suggestions are a result of studying Pirsig, the survey responses, my own journal entries, and my participant observations of various interactions between people with both differing and similar viewpoints. My intent with this practicum is not to present a quantitative statistical analysis, as that would favor the techno-savvy and more "hard" scientific-minded side of the spectrum. In keeping with my "middle ground" goal, I am using narrative to explain my research and my findings, combined with data analysis to support my narrative explanations and theories.
Multi-"Language" Reporting
I purposefully have used a combination of scholarly and "layperson" language in reporting my research and findings, in order to speak the language of a greater swath of people. Similarly, the format of this report is a combination of literary analysis (art), data compilation and analysis (science), and journaling (a combination of art and science).
ACKNOWLEDGING THE ISSUES
Loose Categorization
I have tried not to categorize people into two distinct groups, but for the purpose of analysis, I need to loosely draw my focus into two groups. I have no intention, however, of suggesting that anyone's intellectual and emotional journeys can be so easily categorized, for as Pirsig states, "there are as many routes as there are individual souls" (p. 167). The unfortunate requirement of applied research, however, is the necessity to generalize (at least minimally) in order to provide information that can be useful to a more general audience. I therefore continue to make the distinction between two groups of people: the human-savvy and the techno-savvy, yet I also draw upon individuals' experiences and insights. In the following sections I suggest general viewpoints of both groups, along with segments of individual viewpoints from each group.
In his book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974), Pirsig's brilliance shines through in his intertwining of two seemingly vastly different narratives. He uses the concept of "Chautauqua," a series of talks on topics for the purpose of enrichment and edification, and ties metaphysical inquiry in with his narrative of an extended motorcycle trip. During the long hours of traveling, he has the opportunity to speak his Chautauquas to the reader, and thus has a space to put his thoughts about metaphysical inquiry. Pirsig is the perfect narrator to give us clues into both human-savvy and techno-savvy viewpoints, as he has a fascination (obsession, really) with understanding both viewpoints as thoroughly as possible in order to nail down the elusive entity he calls Quality. I do acknowledge, however, Pirsig's over-simplification of his categorizations into two very clearly separate groups (classical and romantic). My own research is essential in offering an expanded view of the Pirsig's distinctions, so I have combined Pirsig's philosophies and viewpoints with my own and with those of my research participants.
Understanding the Viewpoints
Pirsig's metaphysical inquiry is an intense look into the meaning of quality, which he begins by talking about technology and how his traveling partners, John and Sylvia, seem to resent technology. To restate an excerpt used in the beginning of this paper, "It's not the motorcycle maintenance, not the faucet. It's all of technology they can't take" (p. 14). 24 years later, in a 1998 society bursting with technology of all shapes, sizes and functions, this view of technology is still absolutely crucial in understanding an extremely human-savvy view of technology. This is not a shallow issue, but instead must be a deep-seeded reason for such a pervasive negative attitude toward technology to exist. The key to asking for technological tolerance (for the purpose of middle-ground interaction) is to not dismiss the human-savvy person as irrationally "anti-technological," but to try instead to understand the viewpoint.
Pirsig's responses to John and Sylvia's aversion to technology give us a wonderful example of persisting in trying to understand how their logic and understanding differs from his. Pirsig embraces the beauty and functionality of technology (and is uncomfortable in any intensely human-savvy realm), yet is intrigued by John and Sylvia's viewpoint -- even though it frustrates him greatly.
There's kind of a glaring inconsistency here, that's almost too obvious to dwell on. If they [John and Sylvia] can't stand physical discomfort and they can't stand technology, they've got a little compromising to do. They depend on technology and condemn it at the same time. I'm sure they know that and that just contributes to their dislike of the whole situation. They're not presenting a logical thesis, they're just reporting how it is. But three farmers are coming into town now, rounding the corner in that brand-new pickup truck. I'll bet with them it's just the other way around. They're going to show off that truck and their tractor and that new washing machine and they'll have the tools to fix them if they go wrong, and know how to use the tools. They value technology. And they're the ones who need it the least. If all technology stopped tomorrow, these people would know how to make out. It would be rough, but they'd survive. John and Sylvia and Chris and I would be dead in a week. This condemnation of technology is ingratitude, that's what it is.
Blind alley, though. If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name. You haven't solved anything (p. 40- 41).
A key point here is that while Pirsig does not follow this "blind alley," of name-calling, neither does he absolve John and Sylvia of the responsibility of recognizing their own inconsistencies between their words and behavior --or to use post-modernist terms, espoused theory (words) and theory-in-use (actions).
One of my survey respondents describes technology as "things that have to have electricity to work and things that I just don't understand but desperately need." This response suggests a willingness to accept what isn't understood, yet is needed. If Pirsig had traveled with this person instead of John and Sylvia, he likely would have found someone willing to listen to his views on technology, simply because there was a gratefulness for technology that John and Sylvia refused to consider.
On the other hand are the responses such as "computers and faxes and stuff. I used to think of smokestacks and cars and automation and unemployment, and still do, depending on the context in which the word comes up," or "cold, hard, wired," or "robots and outer space." These responses suggest an impersonal feeling, the opposite of the warm, connecting connotation of "personal," or as explained by one respondent, "science, specialized 'stuff' not warm and fuzzy liberal arts things or books or art."
Still other responses, however, offer more explicitly positive views of technology: "Great ways to help us humans advance in our quest for becoming an enlightened species," and "I think of computers, beyond which I think of medical advances and all the means available for diagnosis of illnesses." The range of connotations shows that an individual's personal experiences with technology does impact their overall view of the worth and use of technology. John and Sylvia seem to have been mostly in contact with a cold, demanding, ugly concept of technology which removed them from the "pure" human contact they so much needed.
Core Differences
John and Sylvia's inconsistencies helpfully sparked a curiosity that eventually gave Pirsig insight into how John's view of technology differed from his own. Ironically, it was through a frustrating interaction regarding motorcycle maintenance that Pirsig finally realized the core difference between John and him. It was actually a different way of seeing, a different world view. A small hurdle on one hand, but a great hurdle on the other hand, considering the tendency of our society to take our own world views as The Truth with a near-religious (or fully religious) fervor.
The turning point for Pirsig was an interaction he had with John regarding helping John fix his slipping motorcycle handlebars. John was unable to tighten the handlebars with a wrench because the ends of the collars were pinched shut. Pirsig knew that the simple solution was to wedge a piece of metal (a "shim") under the collar to loosen it enough to enable adequate tightening, so he suggested this to John. John immediately wanted to buy a shim. Pirsig said that wasn't necessary, since he had one already -- a beer can. Enjoying his cleverness in seeing the usefulness of a beer can in fixing the handlebars, Pirsig was surprised with John's haughty reaction. John ended up aborting the attempt to fix his handlebars, leaving Pirsig surprised and confused. Pirsig later realized that he had greatly offended John by suggesting he use an old beer can piece to fix his new eighteen-hundred-dollar BMW pride and joy motorcycle.
That was the last conversation Pirsig and John ever had about motorcycle maintenance.
WHAT STOPS THE CONVERSATIONS?
In our Information Age, however, we cannot afford to simply never talk about technology, never interact around computers. We need instead to understand what stops the conversations.
Although Pirsig and John stopped speaking about motorcycle maintenance, Pirsig continued thinking about their interactions and shares the following understanding of their differences:
... I had been seeing the shim in a kind of intellectual, rational, cerebral way in which the scientific properties of the metal were all that counted. John was going at it immediately and intuitively, grooving on it. I was going at it in terms of underlying form. He was going at it in terms of immediate appearance. I was seeing what the shim meant. He was seeing what the shim was. That's how I arrived at that distinction. And when you see what the shim is, in this case, it's depressing. Who likes to think of a beautiful precision machine fixed with an old hunk of junk? (p. 47-48)
One of my interviewees (a programmer) relays a similar difference in viewpoints, which I recorded as follows in my researcher journal:
He looks at structure and function. Sees things like a mechanic does. Parts and systems. Architecture of a system. Sees a car as parts -- parts that then blend into working together to become a car. The car then disappears into the context of a highway. I said it's like he has x-ray vision right into the heart of everything. He agreed. He sees our company Website as a bump to get over before focusing on the "real" stuff -- the architecture. I see our Website as a crucial door to our company, with the architecture as a bump to get over in order to focus on the real stuff -- the Website design and text!
He is a mystery to me. His background in neural biology is all about patterns, categories circuits. He believes humans are 95-98% pre-wired and only about 1% learned. I, on the other hand, believe humans have a huge capacity for learning, and only a small percentage of "wiring" that predisposes them to a particular way of learning or capacity for learning.
Our different viewpoints alone would create a faulty, incomplete product, but together we have the capacity to create a wonderfully functional and useful product. In order to work together, however, we need to have some way of understanding what is behind those viewpoints. We need to find a way to keep the conversations going.
The Human-Savvy View
Pirsig goes one level deeper to an explanation as to why John views things as he does.
I guess I forgot to mention John is a musician, a drummer, who works with groups all over town and makes a pretty fair income from it. I suppose he just thinks about everything the way he thinks about drumming -- which is to say he doesn't really think about it at all. He just does it. Is with it. He just responded to fixing his motorcycle with a beer can the way he would respond to someone dragging the beat while he was playing. It just did a big thud with him and that was it. He didn't want any part of it.
At first this difference seemed fairly minor, but then it grew...and grew...and grew....until I began to see why I missed it. Some things you miss because they're so tiny you overlook them. But some things you don't see because they're so huge. We were both looking at the same thing, seeing the same thing, talking about the same thing, thinking about the same thing, except he was looking, seeing, talking, and thinking from a completely different dimension.
He really does care about technology. It's just that in this other dimension he gets all screwed up and is rebuffed by it. It just won't swing for him. He tries to swing with it without any rational premeditation and botches it and botches it and botches it and after so many botches gives up and just kind of puts a blanket curse on that whole nuts-and-bolts scene. He will not or cannot believe there is anything in this world for which grooving is not the way to go.
... What you've got here, really, are two realities, one of immediate artistic appearance and one of underlying scientific explanation, and they don't match and they don't fit and they don't really have much of anything to do with one another. That's quite a situation. You might say there's a little problem here (p. 48-49).
A little problem, indeed! In the same way, there is high potential for "a little problem" due to the different views between myself and the interviewee I described earlier. This co-worker's view is that architecture is the most important part of a product and my view is that the appearance and ease of use of the product are the most important parts. I realize this difference, however, as the reason why it seems he doesn't care about user interface and usability -- he cares, he's just not that interested. In the same way, I care about the architecture, but I'm just not that interested in it. Neither viewpoint is wrong, yet neither is complete. I continue to address this issue throughout this practicum.
CLASSICAL AND ROMANTIC
Pirsig takes the differences between himself and John and begins an intense and detailed analysis of the differences between the "classical" and the "romantic" views, which can be applied easily to the differences between techno-savvy and human-savvy understanding. The classical understanding views the world primarily as the underlying form itself, while the romantic understanding sees instead the immediate appearance. It is no surprise that when people with those two views interact, they miss the point of each other's world views.
To Each His Own...
If you show a techno-savvy ("classical") person a computer circuit board or a page of programming code, they will likely find it quite interesting and pleasing, since either one of those deal with the underlying form of a computer and its functioning. If, on the other hand, you show a human-savvy person a computer circuit board or a page of programming code, they'll likely find it quite boring -- it's not "pretty" in the romantic sense, and the surface holds no interest for a person with a romantic understanding.
Even something such as Web design -- which does allow for aesthetic changes -- may be considered too technical for some human-savvy people, as did this respondent when asked about his/her interest in designing his/her own Web page: "I prefer to use my time more creatively than 'engineering' software, and reckon there are more skilled designers out there than me." To many techno-savvy people, web design and other programming is creative, but to one who sees more the outside hardware, creativity is literally confined within a hard box. To the human-savvy person, creativity confined is no longer classified as creativity.
Pirsig bluntly explains the severity of this conflict of understanding, stating with absolute certainty that this split exists as a cultural split, with no one "willing to give up the truth as he sees it" (p. 62), and that nobody (as of 1974) had been able to reconcile these truths. Yet at the same time, he provides hope with the statement that nobody really wants that split, "despite what his antagonists in the other dimension might think" (p. 62). One of my survey respondents says, "I got saddened by someone who gave up on some software because it's too complicated." The word "saddened" implies a wistfulness for something that cannot be -- in this case, a relationship and understanding that did not happen. The following example also shows a desire to have the two views work together:
Frustration arises for me when the person I'm interacting with is not open to learning more about how to use their computer. If I sense that they are more afraid than anything else, I shift out of frustration and into my 'training mode.'"
This person's desire to close the gap between the dimensions is great enough that s/he even has a special "training mode" to help avoid a gap-widening interaction.
Pirsig clarifies his distinctions of the different "dimensions" by linking the classic mode to Science and the romantic mode to Art. The classic mode relies on laws and reason, "which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behavior" (Pirsig, p. 61). Pirsig explains that in European cultures this way of understanding is seen as largely masculine, so those fields are generally unattractive to women. The same seems to be true of computer-focused fields, with males occupying the majority of computer technician and information technology jobs (for example, my company consisting of 8 men and 2 women). In contrast, the romantic mode primarily relies on feeling, intuition and esthetic conscience for guidance toward action. The romantic understanding tends to be associated with femininity. Although this practicum does not specifically study the gendered differences between human-savvy and techno-savvy ways of understanding, the topic does warrant attention. Fortunately, other research has been done (and continues to be done) on the effects of gendered attributes and privileges in various fields. The parallels and differences studied in this practicum focus instead on characteristics without labeling them as "masculine" or "feminine."
Through Their Eyes
Perhaps the most valuable point that Pirsig makes, however, is the description of how the classical and romantic modes view each other. This practicum is greatly concerned with fostering understanding and complimentary interactions between these two modes, and this cannot be done without some degree of understanding between the two groups. If neither group is aware of how they are understood by the other group, the focus remains internal, with little concern for looking outside one's own viewpoint.
Pirsig, for example, points out that from the classical viewpoint, the romantic mode seems "frivolous, irrational, erratic, untrustworthy, interested primarily in pleasure-seeking. Shallow. Of no substance. Often a parasite who cannot or will not carry his own weight. A real drag on society." In contrast, from the romantic viewpoint, the classical mode seems "dull, awkward, ugly. Everything is in terms of pieces and parts and components. Nothing is figured out until it's run through the computer a dozen times. Everything's got to be measured and proved. Oppressive. Heavy. Endlessly grey. The death force" (p. 62). Is it any wonder that these two groups have high incidence of conflicts?!
What is often missed is what underlies these outward appearances of each mode. An awareness of how each group looks to the other is important for emphasizing the need to understand each other on a deeper level. The classical mode aims to bring order out of chaos, and to make the unknown known -- not to inspire people emotionally. The lack of emotional inspiration is not wrong in the classical mode; it's only wrong to the human-savvy person assuming the rightness of the romantic mode for every application. Or to take it even further, the emotional inspiration may truly be present in the classical mode, but only to the person who has a classical understanding. This point became very real to me as I wrote the following entry in my researcher journal:
[a programmer] said today, in response to creating text for our homepage, that 'Oh, that's just text,' in a brush-off tone of voice. He's said that numerous times; 'yeah, but that's just copy,' or 'that's just words.'
I believe words are an art. And watching [another programmer] write code last week, I realized programming is an art also. I only wish the other programmers I work with would reciprocate that understanding.
Different ways of understanding include different inherent appreciation of certain aspects of others' understanding. It's that appreciation that needs to be greatly expanded by a looking beyond the automatic reactions of what is and what isn't "art."
Pirsig's Rut
Although Pirsig does talk about art and meetings between artists and technologists, he falls short by not explaining the positive aims of the romantic viewpoint. Even in his attempt to share both sides of the story, Pirsig's classical focus colors his view of equal representation of both groups. One's inherent ways of understanding are difficult to transcend and expand.
A TASTE OF TECHNO-SAVVY
Pirsig does, however, provide many clues into understanding the classical point of view, which I parallel with the techno-savvy point of view. It is important to note that Pirsig does not limit his discourse to praising the greatness of technology and the classical mode; instead he includes both affirmations for and frustrations with the classical viewpoint. In much the same way, although this practicum aims for an overall appreciative point of view, I also include the less-than-appreciative views in order to be realistic about the problems that do exist. It is also important not to privilege one group or another, so both the positive and negative aspects of each group have been included.
Language
In beginning my research, my hypothesis included language differences as being part of the communication block between the techno-savvy and human-savvy viewpoints. Pirsig confirms this hypothesis as he relays his experiences with writing and editing technical manuals:
...what struck me for the first time was [that]...these were spectator manuals. It was built into the format of them. Implicit in every line is the idea that "Here is the machine, isolated in time and in space from everything else in the universe. It has no relationship to you, you have no relationship to it, other than to turn certain switches, maintain voltage levels, check for error conditions..." and so on. That's it... We were all spectators. And it occurred to me there is no manual that deals with the real business of motorcycle maintenance, the most important aspect of all. Caring about what you are doing is considered either unimportant or taken for granted.
...I think we should notice it, explore it a little, to see if in that strange separation of what man is from what man does we may have some clues as to what the hell has gone wrong in this twentieth century (p 24-25).
Since the human-savvy perspective is primarily about relationship, caring, community and involvement, this divorce of person from machine understandably causes reaction against the techno-savvy viewpoint. Pirsig later states that "It's not the technology that's scary. It's what it does to the relations between people, like callers and operators, that's scary"(p. 137). Perhaps that's what is behind this response to one of my survey questions: "My wife is scared to death of the computer. We usually wind up in an argument of some sort when I try to teach her something." Perhaps she fears it is computers instead of people, not computers along with people.
The Outward Signs
This negative view of technology is also propagated by the negative outward results that are often seen as all that technology is and does. Pirsig suggests that there is a problem larger than the individuals who fill the roles of technologist, the individuals who often get blamed in the crossfire of unsatisfactory interactions between the techno-savvy and human-savvy individuals. The problem is how technology is portrayed to the "outside world," to the people who only know technology through the frightening, unfamiliar, and ugly outward signs that lurking within (wherever that may be) is that thing called technology.
That attitude [hatred of technology] is not hard to come to. You go through a heavy industrial area of a large city and there it all is, the technology. In front of it are high barbed-wire fences, locked gates, signs saying NO TRESPASSING, and beyond, through sooty air, you see ugly strange shapes of metal and brick whose purpose is unknown, and whose masters you will never see. What it's for you don't know, and why it's there, there's no one to tell, and so all you can feel is alienated, estranged, as though you didn't belong there. Who owns and understands this doesn't want you around. All this technology has somehow made you a stranger in your own land. Its very shape and appearance and mysteriousness say, "Get out." You know there's an explanation for all this somewhere and what it's doing undoubtedly serves mankind in some indirect way but that isn't what you see. What you see is the NO TRESPASSING, KEEP OUT signs and not anything serving people but little people, like ants, serving these strange, incomprehensible shapes. And you think, even if I were a part of this, even if I were not a stranger, I would be just another ant serving the shapes. So the final feeling is hostile, and I think that's ultimately what's involved with this otherwise unexplainable attitude of John and Sylvia. Anything to do with valves and shafts and wrenches is a part of that dehumanized world, and they would rather not think about it. They don't want to get into it" (p. 14-15).
In the same way, if the human-savvy person is unfamiliar with the human-centric possibilities of technology through computers, that dehumanized world is all they know of technology. The computer is hardware, software, and a strange privileged language that only gets in the way of relationships, because it is technology, and technology is all about the TRESPASSING, KEEP OUT signs. The human-savvy person that gets past that outside hardness of technology, however, still has a chance to embrace technology's capacity to facilitate relationship instead of sterilizing relationship to a point that it can no longer exist. It is that step beyond the surface that needs to gain considerable attention and facilitation in today's organizations.
Phaedrus Joins Us
Pirsig later narrows his broad description of technology to a focus on one individual -- Phaedrus, a 19th century scientist/philosopher. Phaedrus plays an important role as a techno-savvy case study, both in Pirsig's book and in my practicum. I apply the following description of Phaedrus in defense of the techno-savvy viewpoint:
He [Phaedrus] went his own way with unconcern for consequences that sometimes stunned people, and stuns me now to hear about it. He did not often swerve to right or to left, I've discovered that. But this courage didn't arise from any idealistic idea of self-sacrifice, only from the intensity of his pursuit...(p 75).
Pirsig adds, "and there's nothing noble about that," but I disagree. The "intensity of pursuit" is admirable, especially in our society that uses the term "Attention Deficit Disorder" as a common household term!
Internal Focus
The accusations that techno-savvy people tend to be unfriendly and non-supportive at work, and seem annoyed at interruptions could be countered with the explanation that the technical nature of the programmer's work requires this intense concentration. While this intensity is also required in human-savvy work, it often falls prey to the opposite need for interacting in their work. The human-savvy person, then, may interpret the techno-savvy person's intensity at work as a personality or relational flaw.
Pirsig supports this explanation with his description of the tendency for the "untrained observer" to see the mechanic as someone who merely does physical labor, and who often seems unfriendly or sociable. To the human-savvy view, this is certainly grounds for complaint in a relationship-centered person -- but not if one takes the time to look a level deeper at the mechanic. Pirsig points out that the physical labor is a minute part of what the mechanic actually does. The bulk of the work is mental processes of careful observation and precise thinking. When a mechanic is performing tests (seen by the human-savvy view as mere physical labor), s/he doesn't appreciate interruption because s/he is "concentrating on mental images, hierarchies, and not really looking at you or the physical motorcycle at all...[s/he is] looking at underlying form"(p. 96). It is crucial to realize and understand that surface appearance is often merely that -- surface appearance -- and the truth of the actual process and intentions is one layer deeper than any of us may think of exploring. Computer programming requires the same intensity of concentration as described for this mechanic, so we should not be so quick to judge concentration as unfriendliness or unwelcoming behavior.
The atmosphere of technology-focused work spaces is another indicator that suggests the unwelcoming demeanor of a techno-savvy person at work is due to an internal focus and concentration. I address this issue as a question in my journal:
Wednesday, March 4, 1998 (10:40 am)
What is it about programmers and their dark rooms? Walked into the office today. [Louis] was working on his computer, and all the lights were off, no blinds had been raised. I came in and could barely bear to wait until I'd taken my coat off until I could turn on the lights and raise the blinds. I turned on the lights, [Louis] looked at me, I raised my eyebrows questioningly, he said "Oh, that's fine" and went back to programming.
Does this connect at all to internal/external views/awareness or focus/concentration?
This focus and concentration is a necessary skill for the techno-savvy person, and the human-savvy person may need to be more forgiving and understanding with the techno-savvy person who doesn't appear to be welcoming. One respondent describes his/her organization's IS offices as follows" Focused - staff is intent at their stations, clicking away at their keyboards," then follows that with a possible explanation of the intensity: "[they are] overworked - too many demands on limited staff. So many problems were created by an old system, it has taken an enormous amount of time to bring the new system up to speed." If that respondent hadn't known the history of the organization's computer system, s/he likely would have been much more negative regarding the intensity of the staff. While this focus should not be assumed to be an unwelcoming unfriendliness, if the techno-savvy person's awareness and concern is consistently focused inward, that amount of self-absorption is not beneficial (and may even be detrimental) to the organization. Focus is acceptable, but not without breaks for gaining wider awareness. The chances of a consistently internally-focused techno-savvy person satisfactorily interacting with a human-savvy person are minimal.
Does Technical = Narrow-Minded?
Pirsig speaks bluntly about this potential narrow-mindedness of technology and those who have technological careers. "Technology presumes there's just one right way to do things and there never is" (p. 147). Compare this to the human-savvy viewpoint which is more likely to presume there are many ways to do things, and the "right" way depends on the people and the particular situation. This contrast in itself suggests that the human-savvy person would be more likely than the techno-savvy person to work at improving the interactions between the two groups through a better understanding and accepting of their different viewpoints. If technology assumes there is just one right way, the conversation is stopped before it has even begun. For example, I had a 45 minute one-to-one interaction one day last week with a techno-savvy person, discussing with him my frustrations at feeling as though he did not respect my human-savvy skills. He said that he definitely respects my skills, but "I know there is a right way and a wrong way to do things..." If I hadn't been determined to continue the conversation (to gather data), I would have ended the conversation right then, feeling as though it were not worth the effort.
Pirsig again provides Phaedrus as an example, this time for his bullish attitude, his attitude that there is just one right way to do things. The following description of Phaedrus is an example of how the ideas and actions of an individual can foster a negative view of technology and science for those who interact with that individual.
Phaedrus prejudges every philosopher he studies. He always intrudes and imposes his own views upon the material he is studying. He is never fair. He's always partial. He wants each philosopher to go a certain way and becomes infuriated when he does not" (p. 113-114).
Or, as one of my respondents puts it, technology suggests license to require that everyone "play by our rules."
Another incident involving Phaedrus occurred when DeWeese, anartist friend of Phaedrus, had a non-working light switch in his studio, and asked Phaedrus if he knew what was wrong with it. Immediately Phaedrus said what the problem was, ignoring DeWeese's suggestions as to what he thought the problem could be:
Phaedrus' cocksure attitude angered DeWeese and he started to argue.
"How do you know all that?" he said.
"It's obvious."
"Well, then, why didn't I see it?"
"You have to have some familiarity."
"Then it's not obvious, is it?" (p 124)
Where does this "cocksure attitude" come from -- the attitude that human-savvy people seem to so often complain about in the techno-savvy people? Although I don't absolve the techno-savvy people from responsibility to work on a broader perspective of "right" and "acceptable" ways of doing things, I do point a heavy finger at institutional and cultural influences on these techno-savvy ideologies. Pirsig does too.
INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCE
Scientific Structure
Pirsig approaches the issue of institutional influence by discussing science and the structure of scientific knowledge. Technical knowledge is structured in the same way that scientific knowledge is structured, and that similarity finds many scientists in programmer roles, since their thought structures are applicable to both science and technology.
This structure of concepts is formally called a hierarchy, and since ancient times has been a basic structure for all Western knowledge. Kingdoms, empires, churches, armies have all been structured into hierarchies. Modern businesses are so structured. Tables of contents of reference material are so structured, mechanical assemblies, computer software, all scientific and technical knowledge is so structured -- so much that in some fields such as biology, the hierarchy of kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species is almost an icon" (p 87).
Post-Modern Challenges
The problem with this hierarchical nature of technology and science hits hard in the combination post-modern/Information Age society of 1998. These differences are not a mere clash between programmer and user, but a more widespread glitch in the transformation of organizations from modern hierarchical and mechanistic ideology to the post-modern leveling of hierarchy and more relationship-centric ideologies found in "learning organizations." If the structure of not only businesses, but also of concepts themselves is hierarchically structured, the very nature of concepts must be challenged! The post-modern "theology" does challenge the nature of concepts by urging us to challenge not only our ways of conducting business, but also the very beliefs and concepts that lead us to conduct business in certain ways. Although not all organizations are moving away from the modernistic hierarchical structure, there is a growing intolerance in today's post-modern society for the hierarchical rigidity of thinking. This conceptual structure change is crucial in the success of interactions between the human-savvy and techno-savvy person, and organizations must be willing to change to facilitate understanding and collaboration.
Privileging Technology
The magnitude of this problem does not become clear, however, until one looks at the greater society as a whole and sees the continually privileged view of science and therefore technology. Where is there room for a different view of technology as potentially human-centric? How can software developers break out of their ingrained hierarchical though, idea and relationship structures? It is not a simple solution such as changing one small corner of thought in a few organizations, since this technical language is intertwined in so many aspects of our daily lives. Take, for example, instructions of almost any kind. Pirsig explains that in each case there is a beautiful way and an ugly way of doing something, and in order to truly arrive at a Quality way of doing that task, both classic and romantic (techno-savvy and human-savvy) viewpoints must be involved and combined. Unfortunately, "the nature or our culture is such that if you were to look for instruction in how to do any of these jobs, the instruction would always give only one understanding of Quality, the classic (p. 262). In defense, then, of both the human-savvy and the techno-savvy viewpoints, it is no wonder that the techno-savvy may come across as being somehow privileged, and more powerful, and the human-savvy person would rebel against this disparity of position.
Because of this concern, I asked several questions in my survey regarding institutional treatment of information technology employees and other employees. I compared their physical workstations and the respondents' reports of how they feel in each area. I also compared the locations of the IT offices in relation to the other offices in the respondents' companies. I quoted an article in the November 1997 Washington Post newspaper, stating that at the end of 1997, students with bachelor's degrees in computer science, on the average, had starting salaries of $34,462. They also had the largest starting salary increase of any field through the end of 1997 (according to the Collegiate Employment Research Institute). This great demand for information technology workers also supports the viewpoint of a technologically-privileged society.
Human-Savvy Responses
Perhaps even more convincing, though, is the human-savvy's repeated use of self-deprecating terms when describing their interactions with those with different computer skills (notice, this question did not say with greater computer skills!). How can we argue that technology is not privileged, when people with graduate degrees willingly describe themselves as illiterate, unskilled, unable to understand, etc.? The following examples show this:
"They [IT personnel] are pleasant and helpful and reasonably tolerant of my ignorance."
" I was talking with an ACCESS expert and he was talking so far above my head that I did not understand any of the implications of what he was saying. And he was not able to "dumb it down" for me. Boy did I feel sheepish!"
" Compaq Technical Support: very encouraging and sensitive. The good interaction is that I never feel stupid talking to them even if I have a most simple problem."
"...For Dummies"
Consider, too, the incredible success of the "...for Dummies" books (from IDG Books; http://www.dummies.com). Internet for Dummies. WordPerfect for Dummies. America Online for Dummies. Hundreds (literally!) of computer-related Dummies books! This concept has been expanded to include almost any skill set, but the original focus was on computer skills for "dummies," and the Dummies Website puts books on Technology at the top of their list of resources. I believe the success of these "...for Dummies" books comes from the human-savvy people's relief at being able to joke about our society's perception that computer skills = intelligence, while no (or few) computer skills = stupidity. I myself bought an "HTML for Dummies" book, thankful for a human-centric quick reference manual, yet I was afraid to take it out of my briefcase at work. It wasn't until a programmer asked me for a specific HTML code (which I didn't know) that I whipped out the book, chuckled, and said, "Here's an HTML for Dummies book you can use!" I admit, I enjoyed the satisfaction giving a programmer a "...For Dummies" reference!
It's Not Technology's Fault
Again, I must point out that technology itself is not at fault; it is our society's and organizations' acceptance (and encouragement) of a purely homogeneous view of technological skills that does not include human/social skills. Even my survey results suggest that technology itself isn't the bandit here. When I asked the question, "When you hear the word 'technology,' what do you think of?" few respondents relayed specifically negative connotations. Most of the responses were either neutral listings of machines, computers, etc., or comments similar to the following: "Presently, I think of computers beyond which I think of medical advances and all the means available for diagnosis of illnesses," or " To me technology is exciting and interesting and it always helps me do what I need to do better and faster. I'm constantly amazed by it."
It is only when an interaction around technology is introduced that technology acquires a negative connotation. Almost half of the respondents shared stories of negative interactions when I asked for them to describe their most recent interactions with their company's technical support staff. On the other hand, almost one half of the respondents shared stories of positive interactions. These results point again to the necessity of improving the interactions in order to improve the perceptions of either group.
Technical "Support"?
Perhaps some of the negative interactions grow from the feeling of needing to ask for help. Asking for help automatically places the technical "support" staff in positions of authority and greater power -- as those who hold the knowledge. One of the survey respondents aptly describes this incongruence:
I don't know what people with degrees in computer science do!! It seems that they play supporting roles. After all computers are just a tool not the end result. I think people are afraid of technology. There's too great a gap between the IT people and the people who do the work of the organization.
This phenomenon also points to a privileging of technology, since people in support positions are usually regarded as the lower level "admin. person," worth only a fraction of the salary of those in management positions. People with computer skills, however, are primarily support personnel, yet they are often paid a salary at least equal to a manager's salary, and often can demand an even higher salary. Having been an "admin person" for six years after college, I am well aware that support staff hold a great chunk of the organizational knowledge and information, but this non-technical knowledge is not recognized by salary as at all commensurate with technical knowledge.
I do agree with many of the respondents that people with technical training deserve a good salary, since they are willing to put their energies into creating our technological future. As one of the respondents says,
Based on my feelings about the computer and my disinterest in becoming truly computer literate, I give those who are dedicated to a lifetime career in computers credit for learning as much as they know and presume that that salary range is appropriate.
I don't agree, however, that technological skills should be praised and rewarded if void of human-centric skills. Another respondent echoes this feeling, asking "When will our education majors see similar results?" When, indeed?
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
There is need for a solution, for a way to change the face of technology for the human-savvy person, and a way to continue drawing respect for both the human-savvy and techno-savvy ways of understanding within and outside of organizations. While organizational change is a huge feat, each step toward organizational change is a step toward a new interaction between the human-savvy and techno-savvy groups. Organizations consist of individuals, and if enough individuals model a different way of understanding and acknowledging each other, the organization begins its metamorphosis into a more encompassing version of its old worn self.
The Lateral Drift
The beauty of this communication problem between the techno-savvy and human-savvy understandings is that it is cause for change. As Pirsig says, "I've heard it said that the only real learning results from hang-ups, where instead of expanding the branches of what you already know, you have to stop and drift laterally for a while until you come across something that allows you to expand the roots of what you already know"(p. 150). The burst of technological expansion and advancement brings with it both a new ease of work and a "hang-up" of misunderstandings between two theologies, two world views.
So now what? How do we come across that something that allows us to expand the roots of what we already know? We start with some time to "stop and drift laterally," and with something that tries the patience of both the human-savvy and techno-savvy people. In that space of drifting laterally, both groups are forced to look at the other and to try to gain an understanding of the other. In some ways, our current society is in that lateral drift, even in the midst of grand technological advancements. The drift is in the use and structure of technology itself, which is becoming more and more necessary in our organizational and personal lives, yet is still viewed by the transitioning generations as potentially evil and taking the focus away from the purity of human relationships. Within this drift is a computer culture that is becoming more and more user-friendly, yet is still more difficult than many people wish to tackle.
Joint Purpose
Let's join forces, then. Take the human-savvy and the techno-savvy person and give them a joint purpose -- to move forward in a way that will please the greatest majority of the market share. In other words, please both the techno-savvy and the human-savvy way of understanding by connecting computers with "matters of the spirit and of the heart" (Pirsig, p. 149). "People are asking if we must suffer spiritually and esthetically in order to satisfy material needs," and the task for both the human-savvy and techno-savvy person is to promote ways to use computers to foster and facilitate relationship. We're starting to see the beginning of this collaboration with the surge of online collaboration and groupware tools, listserves, continued popularity of email, etc. In order to sell these types of software, relationship must be sold along with them. Yet where is the bridge?
The Care/Quality Duo
Pirsig leads us to a bridge of shared understanding by pointing out that care and Quality are internal and external aspects of the same thing. Similarly, a lack of caring seems to carry with it a lack of quality, and technology seems to be the victim of this deficiency. I take one step further to say that both human-savvy and techno-savvy points of view understand and value the concepts of care and Quality. That, then, should be the shared foundation of understanding on which to build collaborative relationships between the human-savvy and techno-savvy groups.
I began this practicum intending to show the possibilities and benefits of direct interaction between human-savvy and techno-savvy individuals, and while I still see that direct interaction as possible, I am re-thinking my assumption that it is most beneficial to have the groups talk directly with each other rather than using a translator/mediator. If care and overall concern about Quality is not present in the interaction, it is destined to be frustrating and highly unuseful. For that situation, I quickly recommend a translator. If, however, care and concern for Quality are stated and agreed upon as the overall goal, the interaction has a chance for being a collaboration of two points of view which produce a combined, greater point of view. This hypothesis is applicable to both the human-savvy "territory" and the techno-savvy "territory," since it breaks down turf issues from the outset of the interaction. It no longer is my issue or her issue -- it's our (human-savvy and techno-savvy)issue in reaching a goal of greater care and Quality.
Pirsig clearly (and beautifully!) describes the need for scientific process to involve and embrace the role of Quality:
He [the scientist] has to care! This is an ability about which formal traditional scientific method has nothing to say. It's long past time to take a closer look at this qualitative preselection of facts which has seemed so scrupulously ignored by those who make so much of these facts after they are "observed." I think that it will be found that a formal acknowledgment of the role of Quality in the scientific process doesn't destroy the empirical vision at all. It expands it, strengthens it and brings it far closer to actual scientific practice...
By returning our attention to Quality it is hoped that we can get technological work out of the noncaring subject-object dualism and back into craftsmanlike self-involved reality again, which will reveal to us the facts we need when we are stuck (p 252-253).
I agree wholeheartedly with Pirsig, but that still doesn't address both sides of the misunderstanding.
Which Is Truth?
Pirsig stops short of explaining what the Arts, the human-savvy view, should begin to embrace in order to meet on common ground with scientific process. If we ask for techno-savvy people to care about their work and to take the risk of applying the elusive mark of Quality to their work, mustn't we also ask the same of human-savvy people? There seems to be a prevailing cultural assumption that human-savvy people automatically care, and since care is an admirable trait in American society, this privileges the care aspect of the care/Quality combination, suggesting that care (subjective) without the technical/scientific (objective) aspects of work can still be Quality. However, the techno-savvy person would quickly interject that care does not equal Quality, so the human-savvy view must not be The Truth. Conversely, there seems to be a prevailing societal assumption that techno-savvy people don't care, and therefore the techno-savvy viewpoint must not be The Truth. This societal privileging of "care" paradoxically parallels the societal and institutional privileging of technology! If both viewpoints can both be shown as both dominant and subordinate, doesn't that mean that both viewpoints must be viable and necessary?
Both Are Truth!
This is an absolutely crucial point -- that both viewpoints are viable and valuable! My theory of care/Quality is built on the foundation that both human-savvy and techno-savvy viewpoints are viable and valuable. Care is the component that insists on valuing both viewpoints, and without care, the care/Quality duo is left incomplete. In other words, if either the human-savvy or techno-savvy view does not subscribe to the foundation of valuing both viewpoints, positive direct interactions between the two groups are nearly impossible.
True valuing of different viewpoints is a very difficult task since each group's viewpoint is their reality, their Truth. Reality for a human-savvy person is far different from reality for a techno-savvy person. And to each group, that reality is The Right Way of Understanding. To further complicate matters, reality for the post-modern organization is yet another separate view -- that reality is socially constructed. This complication indeed has implications for the interactions between human-savvy and techno-savvy people, since societal and institutional influence is key in our American economic, business-oriented culture. The interactions between the human-savvy (subjective reality) and techno-savvy (objective reality) groups need the support of organizations to reinforce the beauty and sacredness of both their realities, without forcing either point of view into a completely new Truth. Post-modern theology deserves great merit for its advocacy to bring care back into organizations, and to change the foundational thinking of the hierarchical, mechanistic modern organizations toward a more relationship-focused structure and function; however, it also runs the risk of practicing exactly that which it preaches against -- the privileging of one Right Way of Understanding. The following argument for the care/Quality theory, therefore, is not only directed toward different individuals groups within organizations, but also toward the organizations themselves. If all three entities (two of which are subsets of the overarching organization and institution) share a goal of acting, reacting and interacting according to the Truth of Quality that involves Care, the foundation for shared understanding has been built without ripping away any sacred boundaries. All three Truths can co-exist.
What Does the Care/Quality Duo Look Like?
To quote my well-loved, yet very linearly-focused cohort, "OK, this theory is all well and good, but what does it look like?" I'll let my survey respondents' answers address that question. Take, for example, the scientist programmer who takes part in interviewing a CEO candidate, and is later asked, "So, what did you think about the candidate?" This programmer answers, "Well, I could tell you whether I liked him or not -- what I personally thought of him -- but that doesn't matter. That doesn't make any difference. I'll tell you what I think and why I think these things; I'll back it up." He then goes on to list the skill sets he observed in the candidate and why those particular skill sets would be useful to the particular company needs. He does not mention the CEO candidate's personality traits. Compare this scientist programmer's response with a Communications Department Editor who says, "I look at how the person interacts with other people, how well they listen, how composed and articulate they seem, and how personable they are," then adds as a seeming afterthought, "I also include what their level of expertise seems to be;" or a Process Improvement Analyst who says, "I'd rather hire a well-rounded individual with people skills and the capacity or interest to learn technical skills over time..."
If my care/Quality theory is applied to this situation, the scientist programmer would need to add the internal aspect of Quality (care) to his external (objective skill sets) critique of the candidate. My theory would insist that the scientist/programmer evaluate whether or not the CEO candidate seemed to care about his work, his interaction with the company's employees, and about working for this particular company. My theory would insist that the programmer apply his own internal perspective, valuing statements such as "I liked him because..." or "I had a negative reaction to him, although he seems to have really high technical skills." Without applying care to the "what makes a perfect CEO" formula, Quality is sub-standard and incomplete, and no company wants a sub-standard/incomplete CEO.
What does the human-savvy person then need to do? Again I turn to a survey response. Compare and contrast the programmer's response to the response of an Educator with a Doctoral Degree in Education and Theology -- a heavy dose of human-savvy, with minimal training several years ago on DOS-- : "[I respond with] my gut reactions; initial impression, how the person responded emotionally, and [I] assess teachability of the person." At first glance, this response suggests a high Quality candidate, but the predominantly subjective (what the individual thinks/believes) and intersubjective (based on social construction) analysis omits the objective evaluation of the candidate's current skill level. An emphasis so heavily weighed toward care can obstruct the application of balancing external aspects of Quality. The person may be of excellent character and personality, yet lacking other necessary skills. All three perspectives, (objective, subjective and intersubjective), must be taken into consideration in order to evaluate for the highest Quality candidate (or product, or interaction).
Perhaps the most important test, however, of my care/Quality theory is to apply it to a computer-focused interaction between a techno-savvy and a human-savvy person. I'll use the example of one of my survey-respondents:
My most frustrating times are with people who refuse to learn how to do something with a piece of software, something that would make their work/output better and make their work easier and quicker.
About two days ago I was working with a word processing document for my spouse and made some suggestions about how I thought it could look better with a few simple changes. My spouse said, 'Don't take the time, it's not worth the effort.' It would have taken less than 5 minutes to make the document easier to use for about 120 students. So I sat on my ideas and did what I was told."
This is an example of people already in an established relationship, feeling a difference in viewpoints through a frustrating interaction. I propose that an initial agreement that valuing both viewpoints through agreeing that care and Quality must be intertwined, would have both eliminated the frustration in the interaction and produced a higher-Quality product. Another example is a respondent's simple, yet crucial observation that [when interacting with his/her IS support staff] " I didn't feel like they could diagnose the problem. nor that it was a problem that they cared too much about." I repeat, "nor was it a problem that they cared too much about"! Again, had caring and Quality both been part of this interaction, the techno-savvy person would likely have admitted s/he was unsure of how to solve the problem, but cared enough to refer this problem to someone who could help. The respondent then would have had a much more positive impression of the IS support staff. Unfortunately, the problem instead remained unsolved and future interactions were likely predisposed to dissatisfaction and lack of caring.
Without Care
Unfortunately, in our individualistic society Quality is often viewed subjectively, as merely that which I deem to be Quality. This eliminates the concept of care (which requires relationship), whether it be relationship to other people or relationship to objects (i.e., a programmer caring about his computer, an artist caring about his painting). Without care, the foundation for the care/Quality shared understanding between the human-savvy and techno-savvy person crumbles, and once again we're left without a way for people from the two viewpoints to beneficially interact. Without useful interaction, a chunk of the market share goes down the drain with unsuccessful products that only serve one or the other view of Quality. The post-modern focus on the intersubjective view of reality is helpful here in counteracting the individualistic view of Quality -- IF it also requires the addition of the objective and subjective viewpoints.
Techno/Human Clash in Higher Education
I have come to this conclusion not only through gathering stories from other people, but also from many of my own experiences. One of these experiences involved a clash of world views strong enough to convince me I needed to focus my practicum on the relationships between techno-savvy and human-savvy people. (I also have great interest in this particular clash because it involves the techno-savvy person with whom I'm working to help understand differences in the world views and communication styles of techno-savvy and human-savvy people). This experience was Taming the Electronic Frontier (TTEF), a required course for the innovative new (started 1996) Master's Degree in Organizational Learning at GMU. This course was designed and taught by Dr. Brad Cox, Associate Professor, and I had the good fortune to be a graduate student in this course.
On the first day of class, Brad (he requested that we address him by his first name) described this course as a way to learn the necessary "plumbing" in order for the computers to become "invisible" facilitators of human-to-human interaction. I also remember him repeatedly reminding us that this was not a course about computers, but a course about human beings. I trusted that Brad was telling the truth, even though the first few weeks of the course looked and felt suspiciously like a computer skills course. Brad describes his course blend in the following way:
Academic reform initiatives often run aground on either-or disputes between advocates of what is often called academic rigor on the one hand and relevance on the other. Such debates are unnecessary and harmful. The world expects both rigor and relevance , together and inseparable, and resents having to choose between one or the other as they do now in choosing between narrow skills training at a technical academy and a broad liberal arts education at a university. The traditional separation of theory from practice is artificial, an artifact of the disciplinary structure of traditional academia; part of the problem and not on the path to a solution. Theory and practice should be integrated so intimately that the question of which is "best" never emerges."
Unfortunately many students in the course apparently got stuck on the practice and couldn't open their expectations and their ways of understanding to the theory base of the course. It seems they did not trust Brad to take us outside the realm of computers and into relationships, interactions and human beings. Here was a Program on Social and Organizational Learning, and they put us in an Internet-based course about computers, taught by a scientist with a background in quantum physics and neurophysiology! The human-savvy viewpoint started as a dissatisfied grumble, and slowly grew louder and louder until it became a roar of protest for being subjected to such a techno-centric course in this program that praised and advocated for the intersubjective viewpoint -- that reality is socially constructed, not constructed around computers! This wasn't Fair, wasn't Right, wasn't The Truth we had been expecting to be taught.
The ironic part is that techno-centricity was not what we were being taught... at least not some of us. Those human-centric ones of us who trusted Brad were able to get through the pain of learning the foreign-seeming basic skills of Internet Literacy and to see technology as a tool for facilitating human interactions in new and exciting ways. Those of us who didn't trust Brad were never able to get past the seemingly hard, cold exterior and interior of that cursed machine we call a computer. In fact, the roar of the dissatisfied was unsettling enough that this course was ripped out of the Organizational Learning curriculum, and with it the chasm between the human-savvy and techno-savvy widened, both with the students and with the faculty.
Those who were dissatisfied with the course had several complaints: 1) too much work 2) too much reading 3) computer training wasn't relevant to their consulting careers 4) The professor was too much of a stickler with his "perfection based grading" system 5) The professor wasn't flexible enough (considerate enough) with his coursework deadlines, etc. I understood the crushing weight of schoolwork overload, and I was frustrated by the time each task took -- but somehow I saw value in all of it. I saw and felt a challenge to embrace a Quality learning experience.
How many professors post their home phone number all over the coursework, welcoming phone calls from 10am-10pm 7 days/week? How many professors consistently require perfection from their students -- but not on the first attempt at completing a task, and after receiving professor feedback and advice? These are examples of adding care to the Quality formula, with Quality in this case referring to the learning process. The unfortunate part of this misunderstanding of course intent (and content) is that not all the students were willing to come together with the professor on a common ground of care/Quality. The techno-savvy and human-savvy viewpoints crashed together as two separate entities with distinct, unbending boundaries.
I think it was culture shock, and many of the students found themselves in a foreign country without a language translation dictionary. They had little experience with different cultures or with applying new materials in new ways to "old" ways of thinking and doing, so the course fell prey to the stereotype that technology and relationships are mutually exclusive. Many of these students were and are professionals in management level positions, which again supports the theory that while technology is privileged in society, organizations are still generally unsuccessful in fostering an understanding of technology as a connector of people rather than a purely techno-savvy tool for data manipulation. As Brad says, "The popular myth is that computers isolate. In fact, networked computers multiply opportunities for relationships." Why was that such a hard concept to grasp in this course?
This course situation was (and still is, apparently) a very complex synchronous intertwining and separation of different viewpoints, different expectations and different learning styles. The human-savvy viewpoint assumed that it was a techno-centric course and held firm to that belief. Brad explains that "...even though the course aggressively integrated web publishing, group dynamics and philosophy, most students saw it as a narrow skills course and actively resisted efforts to break out of that box." It seems that the misconception of technology being all about machines, hardware and software has such a grip on many people's perception that they aren't even willing to consider technology in a different way.
The following memo summarizes the results of the students' high-energy discussion about this course and lends insight to both the human-savvy and techno-savvy viewpoints and misconceptions/misunderstandings. While this memo accurately represents the views of the human-savvy students, the fewer voices of the techno-savvy students seemed to have been consumed by the fervor and force of the human-savvy students' frustrations -- in other words, "our" represents the majority of the students, but not all were supportive of the process or the result. It is important to note that this memo is the students' interpretation of the assignments and the agreements (not necessarily the professor's intention).
Our Assumptions from Learning Community in January
Team Project: Digital product or Organizational Breakdown solution is main part of course except for item B (below).
2 small topics to learn: CGI & Listserver
We will need to do project proposal to get approved
Desert Storm optional
Past practice of flexible due dates would continue.Changes Made to Explicit and Tacit Agreements
Assignments due within one week or grade penalty
Weekly quizzes and assignments (we were expecting it only for CGI and Listserv)
Update Web page (portfolio?)
Desert simulation now is required and due date is being moved up
Final Exam
Now team project is only 30%.
What we want - to avoid last minute changes to Agreements
Desert Storm is optional
Due dates remain as originally stated (i.e., Desert Storm)
More than 1 week to complete assignments.
Keep team project major part of grade. We love this and are excited about it.
Write up directions for MSOL separate from rest of Brad's class so we don't get confused about our directions
An explanation of what is covered in the CGI & Listserv topics.
Some people want to jump right in the technical but others are concerned that this is beyond our needs as OD consultants.
Project due date is last week and project team grade comes from customer and the team's assessment of individual participation.
This memo focuses (note the headings) on "changes made to explicit and tacit agreements" between the students and the professor. It seems that an unspoken contract had been violated -- by both parties. The professor seems to have changed due date policies and shifted the focus of the course content. The students seem to have forgotten that part of the program's training is learning how to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty, and to challenge our own mental paradigms and preconceptions. How did this happen?
I believe it was a gap between the human-savvy and techno-savvy stereotypes and ways of thinking and speaking. A substantial chunk of time was allotted to discussion ("conversation" is too congenial of a term here) between the professor and the students in a Learning Community meeting, and I heard both sides of the gap. I heard the students saying, "but that's not what you said at the beginning of the semester!" and the professor saying, "I don't see that I've changed anything!" and the students saying "you're making us learn non-relevant technical stuff" and the professor saying "the course is not about the technology. It's about what the technology can do for relationships!" and the students saying "you don't understand" and the professor saying "I give up. What will it take to make you happy?" and the students saying "don't make things due every week; don't change due dates on us; let us focus on what WE think is relevant;" and the professor saying "ok, you get your wish." A shared, Quality agreement? No -- a compromise made because of a wall of differences in language and worldview understandings.
Brad recently explained to me his intent with assigning weekly deadlines and his choice of particular tasks for that course:
[This task was about] interactive forms, not CGI. CGI is a huge and technical topic that would be quite inappropriate. The task involved building an interactive form, not building a CGI application. I provided the CGI and didn't cover CGI at all, neither in this assignment nor the class.
Also listserver implies I was teaching how to manage and set up listservers. The task involved subscribing to mail lists and had nothing to do with listservers other than using public listservers set up and configured by other people.
This clearly shows a lack of understanding on the students' parts, which seems so clear to me now, but at the time I was unclear about who meant what.
Applying the Care/Quality Theory
If I rewind time and re-live that Learning Community meeting, I would apply my care/Quality theory. The atmosphere and clarification of shared goals was missing. If the meeting had begun the professor and the students talking about wanting to have a Quality interaction which would lead to a Quality solution, the focus could have then been on Quality (a shared goal) instead of on the frustration and the "things we don't like." A quick agreement to focus on Quality would be better than none, but a shared conversation around this goal would be most beneficial and be taken more seriously. A conversation focused on Quality would have added CARE to the interaction -- something that felt extremely absent to me as a participant in the meeting -- and with care comes a willingness to accept the possibility of more than one Right Way or Truth.
Perhaps the professor was Right about the importance of helping us understand technology in a different way, and perhaps the students were Right about the importance of understanding expectations and having some fixity in task assignments in order to best devote attention to each task. Perhaps the professor was Right about enforcing a weekly deadline for tasks to ensure a rigorous yet beneficial learning experience, which is evident in his description of what happened:
The outcome of this meeting, removal of all deadlines, was an unmitigated catastrophe, both in terms of learning outcomes and grades. Most MNPS students did no work at all until the last week of the course and there was a mad rush at the end. Quality suffered. This also undercut the group projects (group work is time dependent by definition). Avoiding this was precisely why I'd assigned weekly deadlines from the beginning.
Perhaps the students were Right about not needing to know the intricacies of how a CGI program works. But, in fact, that was never the professor's intention!
Perhaps also the students were wrong about assuming that Quality just somehow happens, without intentional and purposeful attention to what constitutes subjective, objective and intersubjective Quality. For example, the task that required a revision of our personal portfolio Websites was met by many students with anger at needing to re-do something that was not important to them. Ironically, that task was focused on helping the students understand the importance of Quality in various aspects of work, school and personal lives. The human-savvy (in this case, anti-technologists) seem to have a belief that ANYTHING having to do with technology is automatically hard, cold, not useful in the human-savvy world. When a techno-savvy person required additional work on previously-created Websites, the human-savvy people assume it is a completely unnecessary, useless technological feature that cannot possibly be relevant to their human-centric consulting work. I believe some very valuable learning was lost, and as Brad said, "Quality suffered."
The students seem to have shared Pirsig's struggle with defining Quality, (it eventually drove Pirsig insane, so I won't try to define it here!), and Brad has shared a similar struggle with teaching Quality. Quality is much too expansive and in some ways too intuitive to define, but it is possible to experience. The students who were unable to see technology as a relationship conduit were therefore unable to experience a Quality interaction with computers and ultimately with techno-savvy people. My care/Quality theory is one of the ways that Quality becomes an experience that begins the human-savvy and techno-savvy experience, and holds a great chance of facilitating a successful collaborative interaction.
My practicum journal shows my own perspective and realization of my assumptions regarding my interactions with a techno-savvy person. This entry is important in helping me see that I haven't been completely unlike those students who were unwilling to value technology.
Thursday, February 5, 1998
...The other thing I've been thinking about this morning is Brad. I sent him the address of a Website I'm working on, and he responded within two hours with a detailed response. He usually points out something that seems problematic with what I've done, some resource to help me "fix" it and some encouragement regarding the difficulty of what I'm doing. Makes me feel bad, good, overwhelmed. Then I stew over it for a while, see the "truth" in what he's said, renew my umph and continue working on it.
The part that seems to really pertain to this practicum, though, is my typical response to Brad's "this part needs work" comments. I usually think, "oh, he doesn't know -- he's not the people expert like I am!" How unfair and categorical of me. It turns out that Brad is a very helpful mix of tech and human, yet it seems a lot of my colleagues only see the tech. What is so overwhelming about the stereotypical "tech" personae? I mean, here I was on Monday night, frustrated with work and the changes [a new consultant] brought with him. Who was the one person I thought would be helpful to talk to? Brad!
My reactions are likely similar to those of many human-savvy people who interact with techno-savvy people. I pinpointed my strength and used it to counteract the techno-savvy strength of the other person, instead of using it to complement the techno-savvy strength. Once I realized that my response was typically defensive in relation to techno-savvy people, I was able to see the contradiction between what I expected from the other person in the interaction and what I gave the other person. Again, this points back to the need to value both viewpoints. If I make it a point to value both viewpoints, I will be less likely to set up the barrier of defensive responses.
It Won't Always Work
It is also important to realize that it is not always possible to have a shared understanding, especially within our current techno-dominant culture. Take, for example the day I cried in the office (very rare for me) because of my frustration at not being able to "meet minds" with the programmers, and the days I went home furious, wondering how I could have ever been so disillusioned to think that we could understand each other. Not exactly a success story. Instead of shared understanding, the more I tried to advocate for my human-savvy view, the more alienated I became, and the less I was heard. I don't give up easily, particularly in matters of communication and interaction, but the only way I could find to keep my sense of pride in my strengths as a human-savvy person was to give up the fight and just know internally that my view had great worth.
Using a "Translator"
I finally stopped fighting and let someone else do the translating - someone with more technology expertise than I. I could only tell the programmers what we were talking about with regard to the "you-centric" product, and that was not enough to "prove" that my reasoning should be taken into account; he, on the other hand, was able to show the programmers what we were talking about, and when they saw "you-centric" in action, they were much more willing to listen. And to care.
In this case, my conclusion is simply: If care is not part of the interaction, get an interpreter -- STAT! I've been worn down and seen others worn down by "care-less" interactions, and I've felt and seen the relief of instead using a translator. The much-needed and very important back-up plan is what we know today as the User Interface Designer (UID) or User Interface Architect (UIA). Notice the dual understanding evident in the following User Interface Architect's response to "How would you describe your most recent interactions with your organization's technical support staff?"
My interaction is usually to report a problem. The call is always answered by someone who obviously has very little training. They either just record the problem and pass it along to someone else or they try to brush me off. They are measured on problem resolution so if they can talk you out of reporting a problem or closing it even though it is not solved, their stats look good."
The beginning sentences sound like a familiar story of help desk "horror," but the last sentence has the tell-tale signs of understanding. The translation is "they're not nice to me because the organization doesn't think that's important." This UIA was able to look beyond the surface-level differences and find a reason why the care part of the care/Quality equation was missing.
CONCLUSION
I began this practicum believing that if I couldn't find a way for programmers and users to speak directly to each other, I would have been unsuccessful. I see now, however, that an expansion of my appreciation for both views within the third view of social reality has been a success for me. I still advocate for and desire successful direct interactions between people with techno-savvy and human-savvy ways of understanding, but I also don't view an inability to directly communicate as a failure. The overall goal is still enmeshing care with Quality, and if it requires a translator to be the bridge of care, the goal is not usurped. Interactions between people with human-savvy and techno-savvy ways of understanding are not easy, but they are possible.
After a while, [my son] says, "Can I have a motorcycle when I get old enough?"
"If you take care of it."
"What do you have to do?"
"Lots of things. You've been watching me."
"Will you show me all of them?"
"Sure"
"Is it hard?"
"Not if you have the right attitudes. It's having the right attitudes that's hard."
(Pirsig, p. 372)
DATA ANALYSIS
Although I used various methods of gathering data, I was able to combine the data in similar ways for analytical purposes of getting a broader sample. I sorted the survey data two different ways into grids. In one grid, I put each respondent's entire set of responses together, then the next respondent's entire set of responses, etc., in order to get a feel for the individual's language, personality, perceptions, interests, preferences and skill level. In the other grid, I put the responses together question by question (i.e., all responses to question #1, then all responses to question #2), in order to get an understanding for the cultural assumptions, interpretations, preferences, understanding, etc.
I focused mostly on the cultural aspects of this research, finding quickly that individuals vary greatly and it is extremely difficult to gather much useful information without extensive personality and learning style analysis requiring researcher training beyond the scope of this practicum. The overall cultural issues, however, are the ones that apply most significantly to organizations, so that data is most relevant to this research.
THE WEB SURVEY
Questions, Reasons and Results
This section provides a glimpse into my reasoning for using my particular Web survey protocol (see Appendix B.1). Each of the questions had a specific purpose, which I explain below, question by question. The order of the questions was also intentional, as I did not want to set up a division between programmers and users, nor did I want to suggest a focus on technology.
I then took the answers to all these questions and analyzed them to find common themes. Following are the questions I used in my Web survey, along with my reason for asking each question and my findings for each question.
Question #1. If you had 3 hours free in the evening, with no job or school obligations, what would you choose to do during those 3 hours?
asked this question to find out about the respondents' interests. I wanted to know if the pastimes and hobbies of this society (mostly American) reflected any trends.
Read (55)
Watch TV or a Movie (35)
Spend time with family and/or significant other (33)
Exercise (18)
Use computer (email, internet or programming) (17)
Visit a friend (16)
Music (play or listen to) (12)
Write/draw (10)
Cook/bake (7)
It is interesting that the majority of respondents included reading as one of their interests, yet only 17 reported using the computer in their spare time. This suggests that use of computers (at least with this sample) is not viewed as fun, relaxing or entertaining for most of these respondents.
2. When other people don't seem to initially understand what you're explaining to them, how do you respond?
Many of the frustrating interactions I've experienced, observed, or heard about between human-savvy and techno-savvy people have been around some sort of teaching experience. I had also noticed that the technical support staff at my previous organization seemed to have little tolerance for re-explaining anything that didn't quickly make sense to the other party.
The answers were not as helpful as I had hoped in addressing my specific theories, but they were enormously helpful in giving me clues for ways to facilitate understanding between people with two different viewpoints (see recommendations section).
Ask what specific part wasn't understood, then listen to the answer (27)
Re-explain, using different terms (14)
Use analogies or metaphors (13)
Draw/use a picture or diagram (10)
Make their explanations less complicated (9)
Talk more slowly (8)
14 of the respondents also added that they would get frustrated.
3. When you think about your accomplishments of the past 3 years, which one accomplishment stands out most to you?
I asked this question to find out what people feel is a worthy accomplishment and what is important to them. Some people expressed a dissonance between what they felt was an accomplishment and what others might think of them, which supports the importance of intersubjective reality (socially constructed reality). I also wanted to gather a possible cultural view of America's perceptions of what constitutes an "achievement."
Family (29, with 13 of those being significant other)
Work (27)
School (25)
Growing as a person (13)
Surviving an emotional difficulty (11)
Learning a new skill (3)
(10 of the respondents listed a combination of two or three of these)
Family, work and school-related accomplishments all placed near each other at the top of the list. This suggests a balanced societal view as to what is a worthy accomplishment, especially since only 10 out of 107 people mentioned a combination of things as their accomplishment.
This data, however, is likely skewed on the school accomplishment, since students in a Master's Degree program were one of my respondent groups.
4. Do other people often ask you for advice?
4.a. How do you usually respond when asked for advice?
This question came from my assumption that both human-savvy and techno-savvy people would be asked for advice (although likely advice of a different nature). I was also interested in finding out if people were willing to give advice, and if so, what techniques they used. I hoped to gain understanding of the experiences of those in the roles of teacher and of student which I could apply to the interactions between human-savvy and techno-savvy people.
Yes (107)
No (2)
I share my own experience (10)
I share my own experience and clarify that it's my experience and may not work for them (5 of those 10)
I help them find the answers within them (12)
I ask questions (18)
I listen (11)
Also added how they would give the advice (10)
- tactfully, thoughtfully, carefully/with care, gently, honestly, prayerfully, sincerely
Only 1 person explicitly stated that they asked questions and listened. This suggests that listening aspect of asking questions is assumed and/or taken for granted, which in turn indicates that the act of listening is overlooked as a skill rather than a natural gift that everyone has.
5. How would you describe your current work environment? (How it looks, how it feels, etc.)
6. Where is the Information Systems (or Information Technology) office area located in yo