Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1998/RRE.Call.for.Papers--Bey.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
[RRE]Call for Papers--Beyond Sociotechnical Systems
```
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998
Sender: History of Technology Discussion
CALL FOR PAPERS --- SPECIAL ISSUE Beyond Sociotechnical Systems
The Journal of Engineering and Technology Management is pleased to announce a call for papers for a special issue addressing sociotechnical systems. Terri Griffith (Washington University, St. Louis) and Deborah Dougherty (Rutgers University) will serve as guest editors.
Since the 1950s researchers have acknowledged that technical and social factors interact to influence organizational outcomes. Work prior to the 50s (and even some work today) often argued for technological determinism where technology implementations were expected to have direct effects -- for example, if a robotic welding system is introduced on an assembly-line, production throughput will increase.
One of the first counters to the deterministic approach was made by Trist and Bamforth1. They noted that human and organizational outcomes could only be understood when social, psychological, environmental, and technological systems are assessed as a whole. This approach has come to be known as a sociotechnical systems (STS) perspective. This perspective assumes that organizations are "made up of people (the social system) using tools, techniques and knowledge (the technical system) to produce goods or services valued by customers (who are part of the organization's external environment). How well the social and technical systems are designed with respect to one another and with respect to the demands of the external environment determines to a large extent how effective the organization will be"2, p.1.
Research building from STS continues through today. A 1997 issue of Human Relations 3 focuses on organization innovation and STS as a work design process (i.e., to be compared with reengineering). Spender4 uses the ideas of social construction and STS to discuss a knowledge theory of the firm. He notes that STS "is unsuitable as the basis for a theory of the firm because it adopt[s] too naive a view of social systems and ignor[es] economic interactions" (p.55).
By contrasting Spender's comment with that of prior STS researchers it is possible to see that the concept of STS is being used in two different ways. Much STS work focuses on designing work for both organizational and human good. There is a normative slant in that the work suggests people should be involved in designing the relationships between technology and work. Quality of work life is a key consideration. The other perspective on STS is more theoretical. STS provides critical insights to understanding the relationships between people, technology, and organizational outcomes. It is this perspective that Spender (and others) have indicated is a limited, but interesting, approach to understanding organizational outcomes.
This special issue is the next step in this dialog. Trist and his colleagues took the first step by opening the black box that was technology in the 50s. Since then, technology researchers have explored a number of connections that might fit into a general socio-tech view: the interactions of individual cognition and technology use, as with email systems the relationships between social roles and networks and technology adoption; the cycles of technology problem solving and types of technical problems; the spirals of adaptation between organization and technology in manufacturing innovation; and the co-evolution of social values and technological systems. Others have developed tools and techniques designed to enable the linkage of technologies across, or through people, such as concurrent engineering, design for manufacturing, and CAD/CAM systems.
With this explosion of STS-like work in technology management, at all different levels of analysis and focused on such a variety of problems, we think it is time to explore the theory that they may, or may not, have in common. Do any or all of these relationships embody similar or different dynamics? Can we build a broad sociotechnical theory that explains the linkages at so many levels and/or technology problems, or are there different kinds of sociotechnical connections that require different theories? Or that fit different kinds of technology management issues? Perhaps a comprehensive theory is not possible -- that instead only subsets of levels, problems, and other dimensions should be considered. Alternatively, future work may find that a comprehensive theory is possible and provides a new approach to our understanding.
To summarize, the goal of this special issue is twofold. The special issue will present papers that go beyond STS as a rather vague description to develop more explanatory theories of technology-organizational outcomes. These papers would clearly explicate the what (what factors), how (how are the factors related), and why (why do these dynamics exist). It is expected that the description, "Sociotechnical Systems," will not be adequate for the new conceptualizations. The special issue will also present empirical papers if they advance our understanding of STS as a theory, rather than just an approach. Thus, empirical papers must include a cogent and comprehensive description of their definition of, or contribution to, STS theory.
Submissions might address (but are not limited to) the following: $B7 sociotechnical theory of the firm $B7 the dynamics of cognition and sociotechnical effects $B7 sociotechnical approaches to managing organizational knowledge $B7 other names for sociotechnical systems $B7 development and comparison of micro and macro sociotechnical theories $B7 assessment of the need for sociotechnical approaches $B7 the role of sociotechnical systems given a hypercompetitive environment $B7 culture's consequences for sociotechnical systems $B7 sociotechnical systems are dead, long live sociotechnical systems
The guest editors of this special issue represent different paradigms and levels of analysis. This is seen as a benefit in expanding the approaches taken to this topic. Authors should submit six copies of their manuscript to the editor they perceive as being most appropriate for the work. Papers should be prepared in accordance with the JET-M "Guide for Authors" (available in the first issue of each volume). Papers must be received by the appropriate editor no later than April 1, 1999. All submissions will be reviewed according to the JET-M standard double-blind review process.
Terri L. Griffith One Brookings Dr. Campus Box 1133 Washington University St. Louis, MO 63141 griffith@wuolin.wustl.edu 314/935-6394 (voice) 314/935-6359 (fax)
Deborah J. Dougherty Rutgers University Faculty of Management 81 New Street Newark, NJ 07102-1820 doughert@everest.rugers.edu 732-873-0057 (voice)
1Trist, E.L., and K.W. Bamforth, "Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Long-Wall Method of Coal-Getting," Human Relations, 4 (1951): 3-38. 2Pasmore, W.A., Designing Effective Organizations: The Sociotechnical Systems Perspective, (New York, NY: John Wiley, 1988). 3Mathews, J.A., "Introduction to the Special Issue," Human Relations 50 (1997): 487-496. 4Spender, J.C., "Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm," Strategic Management Journal 17, Winter (1996): 45-62.
Terri L. Griffith Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Technology Management Olin School of Business, Washington University One Brookings Dr., Campus Box 1133 St. Louis, MO 63130-4899 office: 314/935-6394, fax: 314/935-6359, griffith@mail.olin.wustl.edu ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.