To choose Social
Citizenship as a title for a conference seems to mark the uncertainties about the relative stress that
should be placed upon the social and on the individual in the design of our future in such
spheres as education,
industry and the environment. The currency of self-contradictory slogans such as "Social
Citizenship" signals a society on the move from one world view to the next; and there are
problems because we are crossing the boundary between one stable form of
existence and another. The slogan signals the new emphasis on the social
whilst acknowledging the hitherto prevailing individualism implicit in the
notion of citizen. The distinction between the social and the individual is
mirrored by the dilemma between how far the future is to be planned and how far it
simply emerges from the activities and intentions of individuals and groups. The
remarks in this piece attempt neither completeness nor a linear argument, but
are an exploration of
the notion that tension between polar opposites lies at the heart of dynamically stable social systems.
If
we are to rely on the activity of planning, i.e. designing the future, how do we ensure the relevance of our plans to
the life and work of the people who will be affected by the outcome of the planning? Is
it enough to rely on the expertise of existing planners, or do we have work in
a new way in each project?
There are established skills and experience based upon professional practice that designers may draw upon to
make their work efficient; but is the outcome necessarily of relevance to
those who use the designed artifacts or live in the designed environment? If not
we may have to consider participatory planning.
The conflict between efficiency and
relevance, or effectiveness of decision-making procedures, is one that is echoed
elsewhere. For example, in the design of assessment procedures, between the requirements
of validity or relevance on the one hand, and reliability, on the other. (Assessment is about decision making. Indeed, assessment is
but a ritual when it is not designed to answer a question.) The most relevant form of
assessment of competence of an activity is one which is based upon performance
of the activity
itself. This view is used to argue for assessing student performance by profiles and by continuous assessment
rather than subjecting them to special assessment tasks. The counter argument is that a
formal procedure, based
upon the same assessment tasks faced by all students is less dependent on local circumstances of the test
situation.
People
are differently inclined about whether they stress validity or stress reliability. The two requirements are in
conflict, reflecting the opposing characteristics of fitting to the individual
circumstances and standardisation. Such conflicts between requirements were in
evidence in the manufacture of rifles, an early example of industrial automation in the
USA. Crafted construction,
i.e. individual fitting, leads to better guns but to non-interchangeability of parts, as well as less
efficient production.
Decisions are often thought of as being
about dear situations where they may be taken automatically by procedure, for example
stock re-ordering when
quantities fall below given levels, or about fuzzy situations when human judgment is essential. Computerised
decision making may replace human judgment in routine applications but not where
information is incomplete or evaluation of possible outcomes uncertain, because
the decisions
depend upon idiosyncratic preference or alternative interests which would be served by a different range of
outcomes. The centrality of diverse perspectives and interests is what makes
decision-making essentially problematic.
Arguments for participation in the
development of the future or in the design of artifacts are about relevance of the products of design. In
this respect
I see arguments for participation couched in terms of democratic ideals as being about relevance. Counter-arguments
concern the need for efficiency in the planning process and the impossibility
of obtaining adequate
participation. We may hear the question, "How can we expect participants to have the range of analytical
and communication skills necessary to participate?'
I
believe there are deep issues to be faced about the ability to participate. Arguments about ability are sometimes referred to in terms of literacy problems. At the time of writing, the
British Government is making a play for the need for "basic skills" as a
citizen's right. We also hear about the need for "computer literacy". It seems
easier to talk about needs if we can refer to them as procedures which can be taught - or
at least that can be assessed. We may say that understanding is a goal, but we
can only test behaviour. I believe that we need to consider literacy - or
literacies - as more than merely simply performance skills. We need to see literacies as
being about social practice, as Tacchi puts it, that is as means by
which we encounter and place ourselves in the world. We do so in more-or-less common
and in more-orless
idiosyncratic ways. If literacy is too tightly defined then we are all made dyslexic in one way or another by our
incapacity to cope fully with all the formal media in prescribed ways. If on the
other hand we are able to negotiate the media, the discourse, we employ, then
participation by the many becomes more possible.
sumber : Diktat Kuliah Komputer dan Masyarakat
