Page 253 - Culture Technology Communication

236 Lorna Heaton

2. Circumstances here include the larger institutional context, as
well as daily work practices, which serve as both resources and constraints
on what can be done. While they provide structure, these resources and con-
straints should not be taken to be immutable.

3. The pervasive tension between designer/engineers on the one hand
and social scientists on the other has been referred to within the CSCW
world as the “great divide.” It is increasingly recognized as a fact (even a
defining characteristic) within the field (see Bannon and Schmidt 1991).
4. Bourdieu’s idea is that certain conditions of existence produce a
habitus, a system of permanent and transferable dispositions. A habitus
functions as the basis for practices and images that can be collectively or-
chestrated without an actual conductor. [Editor’s note: Sunny Yoon explores
this notion more fully as a frame for her analysis of computer use in Korea,
this volume.]
5. The first dimension, that of power distance, refers not the actual dis-
tribution of power, but to the extent to which the less powerful members of in-
stitutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally. This dimension has implications for hierarchy, central-
ization, privilege and status symbols. The individualism/collectivism dimen-
sion identifies the strength of ties to and belonging in a group. One might
expect this dimension to be correlated with loyalty, trust, shared resources,
even the relative importance of verbal or nonverbal communication. The mas-
culinity/femininity dimension measures the clarity of gender role distinction,
with masculine cultures having clearly defined gender, and feminine cultures
considerable overlap. Finally, the uncertainty avoidance dimension measures
the tolerance (or intolerance) of ambiguity, the way in which people cope with
uncertain or unknown situations. In the workplace, one might expect correla-
tions with the way the environment is structured, rules, precision and punc-
tuality, tolerance of new ideas, as well as with motivation (achievement,
security, esteem, belonging).

6. Although the training of computer scientists in Scandinavia,
Japan and North America may also differ significantly in terms of “pe-
ripheral” components, with consequent implications for how they see their
role. See Dahlbom and Mathiassen 1993 for a detailed description of the
mechanistic, rational worldviews implicit in computer science and systems
development.
7. The notions of communities of practice, boundary practices and
boundary objects have been explored by a number of authors, including
Brown and Duguid (1991, 1994), Wenger (1990), Star and Griesemer (1989).
8. This should not be taken to suggest that there one could identify a
single CSCW culture. Far from it! It is surely more appropriate to talk about
a mix of CSCW influences.