[论文解读] Against Scale: Provocations and Resistances to Scale Thinking

Alex Hanna, Tina M. Park|arXiv (Cornell University)|Oct 17, 2020

Information Systems Theories and Implementation参考文献 18被引用 36

一句话总结

本文质疑将尺度思维视为科技中的默认做法，认为它常常阻碍系统性和公平的变革，并提出以互助为抵抗框架，提供面向协同技术设计的具体评估问题。

ABSTRACT

At the heart of what drives the bulk of innovation and activity in Silicon Valley and elsewhere is scalability. This unwavering commitment to scalability -- to identify strategies for efficient growth -- is at the heart of what we refer to as "scale thinking." Whether people are aware of it or not, scale thinking is all-encompassing. It is not just an attribute of one's product, service, or company, but frames how one thinks about the world (what constitutes it and how it can be observed and measured), its problems (what is a problem worth solving versus not), and the possible technological fixes for those problems. This paper examines different facets of scale thinking and its implication on how we view technology and collaborative work. We argue that technological solutions grounded in scale thinking are unlikely to be as liberatory or effective at deep, systemic change as their purveyors imagine. Rather, solutions which resist scale thinking are necessary to undo the social structures which lie at the heart of social inequality. We draw on recent work on mutual aid networks and propose questions to ask of collaborative work systems as a means to evaluate technological solutions and guide designers in identifying sites of resistance to scale thinking.

研究动机与目标

• 界定尺度思维及其在技术与社会中的普遍性。
• 分析扩展、量化与标准化的道德与运作含义。
• 批判以可扩展性为驱动的设计及其对边缘群体与数据化的影响。
• 引入互助作为抵抗框架，并为协作系统提供评估性问题。

提出的方法

• 综合现有关于尺度、标准化和数据化的文献，将尺度思维界定为一种道德与运作立场。
• 以 Bed-Stuy Strong 互助为案例研究，阐释对可扩展解决方案的抵抗。
• 借鉴互助学术（Spade）以形成面向技术系统的评估性问题。
• 提出额外的设计导向问题，以评估权力分配、贡献的独特性以及参与性路径。

实验结果

研究问题

• RQ1 一个技术系统是否通过协作、数据提取或权威集中权力？
• RQ2 该系统是否将贡献和经历视为可互换或独具本质的重要？
• RQ3 该系统是否为参与开辟途径，这些途径是动员性的还是去动员性的？
• RQ4 互助及其他非扩展性做法如何为协作工作系统的设计提供启示？

主要发现

• 尺度思维将可扩展性视为道德善，并以输入的量化与模块化为中心。
• 扩展性促进可互换的单元与同质化的用户群，常常以边缘群体为代价。
• 互助通过优先关注关系和本地化、非扩展化的组织，呈现出可行的抵抗范式。
• Bed-Stuy Strong 例证了技术在增强社会联系方面的作用，而非推动快速、广域扩张。
• 作者改编 Spade 的四个改革性问题，并新增三个聚焦系统的问题以引导评估性设计工作。