	Information Technology and Systems (IT&S) As Tools: The Cultural Context of Tool Creation and Use
November 4, 1998	Deborah Bunker, University of Wollongong Roy Dean, University of New South Wales
ABSTRACT
It is the intent of this paper to discuss a philosophy of Information Technology and Systems (IT & S) as tools. A proposed disciplinary model of tool creation within a context is explained and generalised to a philosophy of IT & S as Tools. If we view IT & S in terms of technical and sociological tool creation and use within a particular cultural context we find that certain values are assumed in the design and use of these tools. This cultural context of the creation of IT & S tools is discussed and defined in relation to organisational and cultural differences.
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TOOL CREATION IN CONTEXT THE DISCIPLINARY MODEL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & SYSTEMS- "The Tool Reflects the Discipline" INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & SYSTEM TOOLS IN CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

1. INTRODUCTION

Robinson (1988) broadly defines technology as being licenced or documented artifacts (e.g. equipment or software) and the skills and ability to successfully use them, while Resman & Zhao (1991) describe the process of technology transfer as the shift or movement of these " tools, techniques, procedures and/or the legal titles" to accomplish a human purpose.

If we accept that IT & S fall into a general category of tools and artifacts and we want to understand how IT & S are created and utilsed, we also need to understand the process and role of tool creation and use in relation to the IT discipline/paradigm.

Young (1971) defines tools and the process of tool making in the following way:

assumes skills and a way of life that are transmitted by interpersonal communication and tradition rather than genetics - storytelling, group behaviour, social activities and a sense of historical perspective all contribute to the types of skills that are considered "worthwhile" and are therefore developed;
involves foresight as to the use of the tool - the process of creating the tool involves a knowledge as to the desired outcome of the use of the tool, so here creativity plays a vital role in the process;
utilises techniques that are learned from others and involves symbolic communication (language) - giving meaning to, representing and describing physical and conceptual tools. This symbolic communication may have various subtleties that an outsider may view as 'alien' and never completely understand, making total understanding of the tool and its functions and associated skills virtually impossible;
utilises an evolutionary convention (gradual) - computer software and hardware tools are excellent examples of incremental tool building and
done in a cultural context - each organisational or national culture has certain attributes which make it different from others.

Tool-making is not only technical in nature but is bound by cultural values and an understanding of how the tool has been created for use in an acceptable manner. This idea encompasses the context in which a tool is made and used.

2. TOOL CREATION IN CONTEXT

Technologies (tools) are created and used within a cultural context. In reviewing the history of homo sapiens we find an unbroken trail of tools such as axes, guns, trains, adding machines, photocopiers, computers, guns. Each tool leads to the formulation and production of the next. Benjamin Franklin wrote "Man is a tool making animal"(from J Bronowski [1976]) and there is an overwhelming body of evidence which supports this statement (Oakley [1975]). The presence of a tool-maker suggests the existence of a tool-user. The archaeological evidence of a communicated tradition of tool manufacture and use, suggests a cohesive body of skills researched and created (equivalent of a modern-day scholar) and inherited by subsequent generations. Tools become an expression of the generally held underlying assumptions Schein [1984]. The cultural context underpinning tool creation and use is created and evolves over time. The assumptions which in turn underpin cultural context are deep-seated, taken-for-granted, invisible and preconscious and are patterned into what Schein [1984] terms cultural "paradigms". These cultural paradigms in turn produce values which influence the ways in which tools are created and used.

The culture which shapes a tool, therefore, reveals its assumptions and hence its paradigm, by the artifacts it leaves. Cultural paradigms can be expressed in a number of ways. Research conducted by Kluckhorn and Strodtbeck [1976] and Hofstede [1980] are typical examples of the different assumptions and values on which various cultures are based. Schein [1984] expresses the assumptions of cultural paradigms as the: organisation's relationship to its environment; nature of reality and truth; nature of human nature; nature of human activity and the nature of human relationships. These assumptions represent the philosophical position of a particular culture and Schein [1984] uses the example of the differences in values between some Eastern and Western cultures as an example:

Western cultures:

are oriented towards mastery of nature,
are based on individualistic competitive relationships,
are future-oriented, linear, monochronic concept of time,
view space and resources as infinite,
assume that human nature is neutral and ultimately perfectible and,
base reality or ultimate truth on science and pragmatism.

Eastern cultures:

are passively oriented towards nature,
seek to harmonise with nature and with each other,
view the group as more important than the individual,
are present or past oriented,
see time as polychronic and cyclical,
view space and resources as very limited,
assume that nature is bad but improveable and,
see reality as based more on revealed truth than on empirical experimentation.

Through this example, Schein highlights the vast differences in values which underpin the world view of some cultures. If these views are then represented in tools which are created and used within these cultures, then it is reasonable to assume that the tools themselves are more relevant and have greater utility when used and studied by the culture which created them.

3. THE DISCIPLINARY MODEL

Khun's [1970] approach to defining a discipline outlines that the underlying structure of a discipline arises from a set of assumptions generally accepted by practitioners, teachers and disciplinary constituents. This set of generally held underlying assumptions within the discipline is called a paradigm which as Kuhn [1970] says may also incorporate theories, precepts, values and principles. Popper [1974] defines a discipline as encompassing competing theories in science from which there stems a fruitful discourse in a constant state of change, which also assumes a set of underlying values and Bunker & Dean [1996] say

"when we write of discipline we mean: a complete set of fundamental laws, rules giving a real world view and including those artifacts both tangible, discrete and behavioural."

A discipline is not a profession. A profession can be made up of a variety of disciplines, overlapping with other professions. A profession is defined in these terms; a regime of approach towards solving real or theoretical world problems...using generally recognised tools and generally accepted techniques, created by tool-makers and either culled from experience or developed in answer to a specific problem. A profession only reflects part of a discipline/s. For example, a computer hardware developer needs to know about Mathematics, Engineering and IT & S but may only reflect part of the knowledge of each discipline.

Techniques and tools defined by the discipline are created from a common understanding. They become indicative of the generally held underlying assumptions of the discipline. These views intersect with Schein's [1984] model of the three stage ascent from basic assumptions to the artifacts and creations which drive the evolution of cultural paradigms. It is proposed that the disciplinary paradigm is also heavily influenced by cultural values.

If we look at the tools in current use by a discipline, therefore, generally accepted underlying disciplinary and cultural assumptions can be deduced. Bunker & Dean [1997] propose that a model of a discipline is in four parts (see Figure 1). By extending the idea of tools being the visible sign of paradigmatic assumption which underpin a discipline, they find that four entities play a role; the tool Maker, the tool User, the Scholar and the Inheritor of the discipline.

Figure 1:
THE DISCIPLINARY MODEL - Bunker & Dean (1997)

Model Roles and Their Interaction

The tool User communicates the requirement for a tool to the Maker for action. When the tool is created, the User has several options with a new tool, or one only slightly different to a previous tool. Utilitarian strategies are developed (which themselves are conceptual tools) to assist in the use of the tool and eventually communicate to the Maker the success/failure of that tool.

The relationship between the User and the Maker is critical. For the User, it requires the formulation of a problem and the communication of that problem to the Maker. In practical terms the communicative role may not be necessary as the Maker and User may be the same entity. The tool Maker discharges some of his/her responsibilities by producing a tool (and possible multiple versions) for the User (Oakley [1975]). This highlights a professional relationship.

The Scholar has a duty to teach the use of the tool to Inheritors of the discipline. By extension the Scholar also teaches how new tools are created, passing the necessary skills of tool creation to the Inheritors of the discipline. The relationship between Inheritor and Scholar is educative in nature. Without an interactive relationship both the Scholar and the Maker act in a vacuum. To overcome this potential and serious threat to a discipline, the Scholar may need to constantly survey the discipline (Users and Makers), and the Makers and Users constantly inform the Scholar of problems regardless of whether they are surveyed.

The educative relationship between the Scholars and the Inheritors is also interactive in an indirect sense. Inheritors of the discipline are also, by nature of their training, actively exploring the use of tools in a practitioner or pseudo-practice environment. They also pass their problem formulation to the Maker (through the Scholar and the User) for incorporation into successive tools.

The model is completed with the relationship between Inheritor and User. This relationship is essentially adoptive in nature. The User adopts the tool ensuring the survival of the discipline and the creation of a knowledge bank of experience and education. The User then relates to the Inheritor in a relationship of patronage where the User provides the Inheritor with the opportunity to view and study the tool use, either as an active participant in the workplace, or as a Scholar/Inheritor.

Model Role Assumptions

Interaction between each of the parties to the model is enhanced by role assumptions. Hence an Inheritor may eventually become a User (for example when a student becomes a practitioner). Some Inheritors may become Scholars (for example when a student embarks upon a PhD and becomes an academic researcher). A Scholar may become a Maker or User (for example an academic researcher may go into the field of tool development either full time or part time and also apply the tool in an experiential manner). The model suggests that a strong interactive relationship between User and Maker, and the Maker and Scholar, which is enhanced by a variety of methods, will contribute to the continuation of the discipline.

All parties to the model interact against a background of a dynamic environment. The User may see changes in the environment and require new or changed tools to cope. The Maker may become aware of problems suffered by all Users because of their unique role of seeing abstracts and trends in Users' problems. They may draw conclusions about tool usage and suggest innovation and change.

4. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & SYSTEMS - The Tool Reflects the Discipline

Just as the values and assumptions which underpin IT & S tool creation reflect the tool's cultural paradigm, we should ask, what is the implication of the values and context that is built in to tool creation, and how does this influence our perception of the IT & S discipline ? Is it the manifestation of these IT & S tools that reflect our discipline ? It is generally accepted that IT & S researchers and practitioners regard themselves as part of a legitimate emerging discipline (Galliers [1994]).

To validate this statement it is necessary to have knowledge of the tools which are currently accepted by that discipline. For example within IS, Avison [1993] discusses a model of Research in Information Systems Development, in which the Techniques and Tools as well as Methodology Frameworks of IS stem directly from the Theory of IS Development using a contingent framework from emerging themes.

A conceptual model may be defined as a tool. By way of another example, we may look at the input/process/output model which is used in Information Systems (IS) to explain the input of raw data and the output of meaningful information (de Marco [1978] and Yordon [1989]. It is also a powerful tool which is used in the creation and definition of IT & S. Handy [1993] defines a tool as "something which extends the capacities of the individual" and a machine as "something that is greater than a man, needing men to service it but essentially independent of them". Handy talks about the substitution of machines for tools in the industrial revolution which introduced the idea of mass-production and division of labour. With new developments of IT portability and miniaturisation, however, large computers (machines) are now becoming more tool-like, for example the portable office (laptop PC with fax capability, mobile phone and printer). This evolution of IT makes the definition of IT as a tool rather than a machine, an important concept in our understanding of the evolution IT in general.

Recognition of the IT & S paradigm comes from stability in the discipline, hence, we observe an accumulation of ideas which centre around themes. For example, Avison's [1993] work on the model of Research in Information Systems Development.

If we look at the Disciplinary Model (Bunker & Dean [1997]), and the creation of information technology and systems in general, does the tool reflect the discipline ? How we deal with the multidisciplinary aspects of our research area seems to confirm this (as evident in such conferences as the Association of Information Systems and the International Conference on Information Systems). We can see one area of commonality in our studies are the technology and systems physical and conceptual tools. We as researchers, study and publish findings about various aspects of them. For example, scholars within the area of Commerce look at how these tools contribute to the better functioning of organisations while scholars in Computing Science look for effective and efficient functioning of the tools themselves.

Shanks, Rouse and Arnott [1993] discuss a Model of the Discipline of Information Systems based on Peter Keen's [1987] work, defining the current status, trends and needs in IS research, practice and scholarship. This model is IS specific defining the IS "professional" discipline from within, in terms of assumptions about research topics and methods, their application to practice, and the author's beliefs that the discipline "is and will remain, fundamentally computer-based". As stated previously, however, a profession is not a discipline, as it can be made up of a variety of many disciplines and many researchers within IT & S have expressed concerns, over the years, with the development or lack thereof, of IT & S paradigmatic assumptions (Weber [1987], Culnan [1986], Banville & Landry [1992], Galliers [1994]) that position and define IT & S as a discipline in its own right.

If we view the Disciplinary Model we see that the generic roles of tool User, Maker, Scholar and Inheritor, reflect the paradigmatic assumptions on which any discipline is based. The Model of the Discipline of Information Systems (Shanks, Rouse and Arnott [1993]) is thus subsumed by this more generic Disciplinary Model. The tools in use, whether theoretical or applied would then reflect the underlying paradigmatic assumptions of the IT & S discipline. The User/Maker would seem to have a similar role as the Practitioner, the Maker/Scholar to the Researcher and the Scholar/Inheritor to the Scholar, thus, positioning and defining IS within the Disciplinary Model.

Model Roles Within the IT & S Discipline and Their Interaction

The tool Maker is that entity responsible for the physical manifestation of the tool. The tool User takes the tool and applies it for the advancement of practice or theoretical purposes. The Scholar studies tool making and use and attempts to understand the domain of knowledge and skill which enhances the tool creation and use. The Inheritor learns from the creation, use and understanding of the tool. Each of these roles can be discrete in nature or combined in an individual. These four entities interact within a context which contains and reflects the cultural assumptions of the particular organisation or national culture in which the tool is being built, used, studied or understood.

Tool Makers can be IT vendors or in-house developers, tool Users can be organisational staff members, Scholars can be academics or individuals in R & D departments in organisations and Inheritors can be students, organisational staff members or anyone who learns through the application of IT & S. This list is by no means exhaustive. Academics, vendors, developers, organisational staff members and students could also, simultaneously, be tool Makers, Users, Scholars and Inheritors. As we can see by these examples, any entity can take on any or all of these roles in almost any combination. The roles themselves have in-built assumptions but are not necessarily discrete in nature.

What about the tools themselves ? Within Information Systems a tool may manifest itself in a number of ways, not all of which are computer based, or are necessarily used to create computerised systems. First, a tool may be a conceptual, for example, IS Management Frameworks. Second, a tool may manifest itself in the creation of another tool for example a Systems Development Life Cycle approach may contribute to the creation of an application system. Third, a tool may be a physical artifact, for example a piece of hardware. The roles of Scholar, Maker and User are heavily influenced by the Makers and Users specifying areas of research. Typical work in this area would include case studies and field research. This is defined as focused research, however, little of this research is purely about detecting the paradigm.

Research about the paradigm would ask questions about a universe of practice. By way of example: what data modeling techniques and tools are generally made by Makers and used by the Users? How relevant are these IS tools ? Answers to these questions might influence both the nature of the educative process for the Inheritors of the discipline and the nature of more focused research.

The Relationship Between the Maker and the Scholar is currently driven by our limited acceptance and knowledge of IT & S discipline. The shortfall in our understanding of the IT & S discipline may come directly from a lack of survey research which focuses on the tools produced within the discipline. If we accept the theory and we were to examine a representational list of tools, what are the underlying assumptions from which they were created ?

What does acceptance of a tool tell us about the IT & S discipline ? The difficulty we have in defining IT & S as a discipline is, if we say that the tools reflect the paradigmatic assumptions, then we must have a means of defining the tools. By asking Makers and Users to define their tools we may bring the discipline into sharper focus, but disciplinary tool validation remains a problem.

5. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & SYSTEMS TOOLS IN CONTEXT

IT & S are not all defined and created in exactly the same way. Tool definition and creation starts from a multitude of contexts. While a particular IT & S may represent certain values and assumptions in one context it may mean something completely different or be meaningless in another. The Bunker & Dean (1997) model of a discipline is bounded by context as the four entities are influenced by the environment in which they find themselves. In order to understand how to successfully and effectively use and IS & T tool we need to understand the assumptions and values which underpin the tool.

Underlying assumptions in the form of various ways of viewing the world, erect a barrier to, or can facilitate an understanding of the technology and how it can be utilised successfully.

Johnson [1997] discusses the idea that all technology has intractable and flexible properties. The intractable properties of technology are those which assume skills and technology use that require certain patterns social relationships and organisation. More flexible technology properties are compatible with more diverse patterns of social behaviour. Technology which is more flexible in nature, however, may also result in misuse or unintended use of that technology. Ultimately, our 'view of the world' or cultural paradigm affects our perception on such matters. The idea that 'our technology is superior' may be the dominant theme in our research and perception.

When we view various tools and their uses, we can also see by the vast differences in cultural paradigms that tools are not only technical in nature and function but must also fulfil a social role by reinforcing relationships within cultures and between cultures. Take for example DeLisi's [1990] discussion of the Yir Yeront, an Australian aboriginal tribe whose use of the stone axe symbolised a critical system of social relationships with the tribe and between it and other tribes. The stone axe fulfilled a physical function (chopping wood, hunting, constructing huts) and also a social function (only men could own axes and women had to borrow them according to kinship rules). DeLisi goes on to describe the trading relationships with the tribes that controlled the source of the stone, and the festivals, initiation rites and totemic ceremonials that surrounded these relationships. The Yir Yeront, however, had their culture changed irrevocably, toward the end of the nineteenth century, with the impact of the European steel axe (as did their trading partners).

Tool creation and use also has an historical dimension through our study of what tools our ancestors have developed and utilised before us. Consider the effect of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima on the weaponry development programs of the US and other world military powers.

Could the creation and implementation of an IT & S tool alter an organisational or national culture in much the same way ? Johnson [1997] suggests that IT & S changes the way we view and use information. Can an IT & S developed in one culture, that is transferred to a significantly different culture, change that culture or is the tool itself doomed to failure ?

6. CONCLUSIONS

If we accept that there are vast differences between various views of the world, and that information technology and systems tool creation and use is underpinned by these cultural paradigms, what then, are the implications for the development and use of an information technology and systems tools in one culture for diffusion and use in another ? In this fast-paced, highly volatile and mobile global society, many organisations find themselves in a situation where the transfer, diffusion and use of IT is pushed at an extraordinary rate. Cardwell [1994] argues the importance of IT as

"one of the great strategic technologies; arguably in its applications and scope exceeding all others".

Richard Baskerville [1995] explains that the use and management of IT is an expression of an organisation's structure and culture and that as we computerise the symbolic universe of the organisation that we can view the system and its information as artifacts. The impact of IT pushed into organisations with many contextual differences, in such a small time-frame, has far reaching implications for organisations within a nation and also across borders. Robinson [1988] has likened the process of developing technology in one society and implanting it in another without adaptation as

"transplanting a living organ from one body to another without testing compatibility."

Does "the tool reflect the paradigm" ? We might accept this as a reasonable argument given the history of tool creation and use by mankind over the years. How we deal with the multidisciplinary aspects of our research area also seems to confirm this (as evident in such conferences as the Association of Information Systems and the International Conference on Information Systems). We can see one area of commonality in our studies are the technology and systems physical and conceptual tools. We, in our role as scholars, study and publish findings about various aspects of creation and use of these tools. For example, scholars within the area of Commerce look at how these tools contribute to the better functioning of organisations while scholars in Computing Science look for effective and efficient functioning of the tools themselves.

Is the IT & S discipline bound by cultural context ? It would seem from this analysis that the tools and techniques made and used by our discipline have certain cultural underpinnings. How we deal with IT & S cultural context, in our research and IT & S development and use has the potential to affect many areas (Electronic Commerce, Business Process Re-engineering, Globalisation of the Economy and Equity and Fairness in Access and Use of IT & S by less developed (read Westernised) nations).

REFERENCES

Allen, T.J. (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R & D Organisation MIT Press.

Avison, D.E. (1993) Research in Information Systems Development and the Discipline of Information Systems, 4th Australian Conference on Information Systems.

Banville, C. & Landry, M. (1989) Can the MIS Field be Disciplined ? Communications of the ACM, 32, 1.

Baskerville, R. "Structural entropy model of technology transfer" in Kautz, K., Pries-Heje, J., Larsen, T. & Sorgaard, P. (Eds) Proceedings of the First IFIP TC8 Working Conference on Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology. October, 14-17,1995, Leangkollen, Oslo, Norway. Conference Notebook.