This book review seems a good companion to Justin's post below on artificial intelligence/human-computer interaction. The reviewer ties three different books together under the theme of how humanity seems to be integrating itself with its digital machines - including discussion of brain-computer interaction (whoa.) and Google's search algorithms or "contouring."

Social informatics is not explicitly mentioned in this article. However, I think it gives us direct insight into crafting our own definition of the term and its application. Bates looks at the overall domain of information science, and how we, as members of that discipline, can break free of the idea (which may have changed a bit since its writing in 1999) that there's no content to LIS education and practice, just structure (i.e., the core of our profession is to organize other discipline's information). Most applicable to our discussion, at least in this point of the semester, seems this excerpt: "In comparison to other social and behavioral science fields, we are always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people's lives. When we study people we do so with the purpose of understanding information creation, seeking, and use. We do not just study people in general. The rest of the social sciences do various forms of that. Sometimes this can be a very fine distinction; other times it is very easy to see. In communications research, a cousin to our field, the emphasis is on the communication process and its effects on people; in information science we study that process in service of information transfer. For another example, there are social scientists today who are observing people doing collaborative work through new types of networked systems in the field of computer-supported co-operative work (CSCW) . The sociologist or social psychologist identifies and describes the network of relationships and the social hierarchy that develops under these circumstances. They may examine the impact of technology on those social relationships and on the work of the individuals involved. The information scientist, on the other hand, follows the information the way Woodward and Bernstein "followed the money" in their Watergate investigations. That's the red thread in the social tapestry. When we look at that social hierarchy, we ar

The Berkman Center often conducts great, free webcasts on its many different research focuses and produces an incredible number of research reports. Lots to digest on the site, but I wanted to share for everyone's perusal. I'd really recommend subscribing to its blog as well.

For me it's helpful to understand a discipline by looking at the types of classes someone undertaking it might enroll in/teach. I found the Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics at Indiana University Bloomington in my surfing and thought it might be helpful for others as well to get a sense of what a primary course of SI study might entail. Perhaps most helpful though is that the center provides a history of the term, "social informatics" and a few foundational documents (nearly all by the center's namesake) of the discipline.

One aspect of the digital divide includes urban-rural connectivity disparity. Jeanine mentions Jessamyn West earlier in diigo, and I thought this woman required at least one more bookmark here (I'm a huge fan of her work, writing, presentations.)! The link is to the audio recording of Jessamyn's facilitation of the "Offline America" session at last year's SXSW (South by Southwest) conference. You can get the lecture notes, slides and more here: http://librarian.net/talks/sxsw2011/.