| Ecology of Infrastructure |
| | >>Link: What Is Infrastructure?\What Is Infrastructure? |
| | When is an Infrastructure? |
| | >>Note: “What can be studied is always a relationship or an infinite regress of relationships. Never a “thing”-Gregory Bateson |
| | With this caveat, infrastructure emerges with the following dimensions |
| | The Worm Community System (WCS): Background |
| | Signing On and Hooking Up |
| | Levels of Communication and Discontinuities in Hierarchies of Information |
| | >>Link: Levels of Communication and Discontinuities in Hierarchies of Information\Levels of Communication and Discontinuities in Hierarchies of Information |
| | >>Note: The Transcontextual Syndrome on the Net |
| | >>Link: Double Binds: The Transcontextual Syndrome on the Net\Double Binds: The Transcontextual Syndrome on the Net |
| | Summary and Recommendations for Addressing Double Binds |
| | Double levels of language in design and use |
| | >>Note: There may be double binds in those aspects |
| | The gap inherent in discussions within the worm community |
| | The gap between diverse contexts of usage |
| | Organizational Environment: Communities & Large-Scale Infrastructure |
| | Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces |
| | Levels of Communication and Discontinuities in Hierarchies of Information |
| | >>Link: Page-1\Ecology of Infrastructure\Levels of Communication and Discontinuities in Hierarchies of Information |
| | Baseline Knowledge and Computing Expertise. |
| | Addressing First Order Issues |
| | Technical Choices and a Clash of Cultures. |
| | Paradoxes of infrastructure. |
| | Tensions between a Discipline in Flux and Constraints as Resources |
| | Additional Issues: “Near-compatibility" and the “Any Day Now” User |
| | Addressing Second Order Issues |
| | Triangulation and Definition of Objects. |
| | Multiple Meanings, Data Interpretation, and Claim Staking. |
| | Network Externalities and Electronic Participation. |
| | Tool Building and the Reward Structure in Scientific Careers. |
| | Addressing Third Order Issues |
| | Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces |
| | Double Binds: The Transcontextual Syndrome on the Net |
| | >>Link: Page-1\Ecology of Infrastructure\Double Binds |
| | We identify several varieties of double binds arising across two levels or orders from what we callinfrastructural transcontextual syndrome |
| | the gap between diverse contexts of usage |
| | the gap inherent in various computing-related discussions within the worm community itself |
| | the gulf between what Robinson has called "double levels of language" in design and use |
| | The gap between diverse contexts of usage. |
| | The gap inherent in discussions within the worm community. Within the worm |
| | Double levels of language in design and use. There may be double binds in those aspects |
| | Summary and Recommendations for Addressing Double Binds |
| | The Role of Multi-Disciplinary Development Teams |
| | The Nature of Technical User Education |
| | Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces |
| | >>Link: Page-1\Ecology of Infrastructure\What Is Infrastructure? |
| | When is an Infrastructure? |
| | >>Note: “What can be studied is always a relationship or an infinite regress of relationships. Never a “thing”-Gregory Bateson |
| | With this caveat, infrastructure emerges with the following dimensions: |
| | >>Note: Infrastructure is "sunk" into, inside of, other structures, social arrangements and technologies |
| | >>Note: Infrastructure is transparent to use, in the sense that it does not have to be reinvented each time or assembled for each task, but invisibly supports those tasks |
| | >>Note: This may be either spatial or temporal -- infrastructure has reach beyond a single event or one-site practice |
| | Learned as part of membership |
| | >>Note: The taken-for-grantedness of artifacts and organizational arrangements is a sine qua non of membership in a community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1992; Star, in press). Strangers and outsiders encounter infrastructure as a target object to be learned about. New participants acquire a naturalized familiarity with its objects as they become members |
| | Links with conventions of practice |
| | >>Note: Infrastructure both shapes and is shaped by the conventions of a community of practice, e.g. the ways that cycles of daynight work are affected by and affect electrical power rates and needs. Generations of typists have learned the QWERTY keyboard; its limitations are inherited by the computer keyboard and thence by the design of today’s computer furniture (Becker, 1982) |
| | >>Note: Modified by scope and often by conflicting conventions, infrastructure takes on transparency by plugging into other infrastructures and tools in a standardized fashion. |
| | Buildt on an installed base |
| | >>Note: Infrastructure does not grow de novo; it wrestles with the “inertia of the installed base” and inherits strengths and limitations from that base. Optical fibers run along old railroad lines; new systems are designed for backward-compatibility; and failing to account for these constraints may be fatal or distorting to new development processes (Monteiro, et al., 1994). |
| | Becomes visible upon breakdown |
| | >>Note: The normally invisible quality of working infrastructure becomes visible when it breaks: the server is down, the bridge washes out, there is a power blackout. Even when there are back-up mechanisms or procedures, their existence further highlights the now-visible infrastructure. |
| | Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces |
| |