Introduction

Orlikowski (1992) defined three elements of this structure: structures of significance, structures of domination, and structures of legitimation (Orlikowski, 1992). Structures of significance are rules that define interaction between actors. Structures of domination are how the ability to affect changes are distributed in a community. Structures of legitimation norms and conventions that guide actions within a community. Orlikowski (1992) saw structure as the underlying actions of actors, which are non-static and temporal.

The structure pointed out by Orlikowski (1992) is a refreshing outlook of institutional structure affecting technological usage. However, it sees technology as separated from the institution. This compared to Hanseth’s (2004) conception of technology and organizations as a complete knowledge system. This was discussed in another paper presented in Informatics 263 class.

Something that was not discussed was it is heavily influenced by situated action and thus also contain some of its deficiencies. As a result, within its construct, human agents have no bearing on institutional properties. Yet, activity theory pointed out that human intentionality affects our community. In Orlikowski’s conception, technologies and humans act according to its situation. In activity theory’s conception, meaning and actions are driven by intentions, not the place nor community, although the latter may have their influence.

Seeing Beyond the Bounds: Intentionality being the locus of investigation

Orlikowski pointed out that “one influence concerns the nature of human action in organizations, which is situated action, and hence shaped by organizational contexts.” In this construct, human agents may influence institutional properties by changing technology usage but there is not direct impact on institution itself. How about bottom up actions that make an impact on the institution? More attention has been given to ad-hoc groups’ impact in innovations such as Lead User Analysis, active exploration and experimentation, and alliance networks (Tuomi, 2002). These networks often extend beyond the bound of institutions in search for creative process and ideas. We can pick up some conclusions:
1. Institutional impacts do not come just from technologies
2. Human actions that are not situated within the institution, have impacts on it
3. In the age of internet, ‘situatedness’ becomes blurred. Its hard to anticipate who can contribute or impact our projects.

It can be sympathized that situatedness can be defined seen at the time of ethnographic observation. But surely, users’ actions go way beyond that boundary. With any forms of communication technologies, its becoming commonplace that activities were carried out in multiple locations, and at times affected by unforeseeable participants.

Nonetheless, in the investigation of psychology, and by tying objectives of an institution and tools to human intentionality, it becomes stable and clear of its beneficiaries. The object of analysis lies within the human actor, or several actors. The reason is not so much of humans being superb above all life forms or even artifacts. Rather, its human whom we are interested in, its human whom we are designing for, its us who are seeking happiness. With human intentionality as the center piece, it's the locus of our attention. It also makes sense to understanding the things we use and place we live in. This purpose, of institution and tools, are what give it meaning. Perhaps being in the institution gives us a title of recognition. I am the PhD student at UC Irvine. Yet, I am also Bonnie’s student, I am in the triad of Ruy and Nobu. I am recognizable and differentiable, yet my intention of being here is mine alone. I am here because the institution can further my purpose. When the intention is met, my ties with the institution passes by or transforms.

Furthermore, I do not have to be bounded to UC Irvine. I continue to function as a human in my home and in my country. I network with other researchers from Asia. I kept my bonds even if they do not give me any titles. In some ways, knowledge may cross between the two institutions because of this. Somewhat beyond my control, my intention may be harnessed by places I have been, but not entirely from UC Irvine. Yet, this intention has impact on thesis, friends, and colleagues.

Effects of Intentionality as Locus of Investigation

In this short passage, we have walked through some of the distinct advantages of having intentionality has the locus. Explicitly, (1) it provides a basis for considering developmental perspective of a certain community. Without it, an institution becomes a lasting construct where humans are the changing ingredients. Yet, in our conceptions, institution changes through time. (2) We also added possibility of innovation and creativity within an institution, as a function of external influence due to overlapping intentions and objectives, within and between humans and institutions. (3) It becomes clear that humans are the subject of science. We do not say it out loud, but we are the reason for understanding technologies. While technologies are beginning to take sustainability into consideration, we do not moan for the loss of a tree if its not going to affect our health or way of life in some ways.

=========
References

Hanseth O (2004). Knowledge as infrastructure. In The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology: Innovation, Actors, and Contexts. Oxford: University Press.

Orlikowski, Wanda J. 1986. The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, Focused Issue: Management of Technology. (Aug., 1992), pp. 398-427.

Tuomi I, 2002. Networks of Innovation: Change and meaning in the Age of the Internet. Oxford: University Press.

Feb 2008