Information Ecologies – Part 2
I’m going to briefly talk about some of the ideas from the book Information Ecologies. One of the main issues the authors wrote about is the way technology is thought about and discussed. They stress the importance of language when discussing technology–particularly the metaphors that shape the way we think.
Theory
The book’s ideas are related what I wrote about in my thesis paper. During my research, I had a difficult time resolving the word technology – a word that engineers, anthropologists, and everyday people use as opposed to product – a word that designers, and perhaps business people use. Technology usually refers to the collection of products we use that contain a variety of computational components. When we talk about technology, we are more often than not talking about digital/information/high technology. The problem I see is that just using the word technology usually implies a sense of inevitability–which the authors were trying to push back on.
By talking about the man made world in terms of a product, for example, saying interactive product, more responsibility can be give to the people that actually create them and make decisions about them. Designers, policy makers, and the communities that use the products don’t deal with pure technology in their everyday lives, but with products that have been intentionally shaped. Because of this, I’ve found the idea of a product ecology to be more grounded in the reality and language of everyday people.
Their argument about using an information ecology is useful and interesting. It balances the way that technologists might look at a situation that incorporates technology. It reaches out and makes connections between an idea that comes from biology to our everyday life. One of the most valuable things about it is that it gives a set of dynamic characteristics (system, diversity, coevolution, keystone species, and locality) that we can use to study, interpret, discuss, and think about. At the very least, it is a source of inspiration to think about things in a different way–even if it seems too abstract at times.
Practice
Why does any of this matter and to whom? Well, the ideas in the book can be useful to lots of people, but I’m going to stick specifically to designers. As the things we design become more complex and integratated into our contexts, I think it can become harder to tease out all the parts and think about them. To a service designer, this might seem obvious–that there is a complex system with lots of parts that need to be accounted for, not the least of which includes people with their needs and desires. But I still think that it can be useful in different stages that designers find themselves in, here are some quick thoughts:
- Researching: Generating interview questions around information ecology characteristics.
- Synthesizing: Grouping data collected during research around characteristics of the information ecology.
- Communicating: Building models based on an information ecology’s characteristics.
- Generating : Coming up with ideas that cater to a living, evolving system that fit with people’s personal values. Brainstorming around an information ecology’s characteristics.
- Refining: Fleshing out concepts that take into account the characteristics of an information ecology and referring back to them.
It might look a bit deterministic at first, but I’m not saying this should take the place of whatever a designer does already or that they should use it at every step of the process. It’s just another tool that can be used when needed. The authors go into detail–perhaps a bit too much detail–with examples involving libraries, schools, workplaces, classrooms, and hospitals. Being anthropologists, their focus is mainly on the researching aspect and less on the other phases of design.
