Presentation
Asymmetric Bridging in Sociotechnical Systems: How Subsystem Orientation Varies by Stakeholder Direction in Disability Accommodation Processes
SessionWednesday Poster Session
DescriptionDisability accommodation in higher education is a multi-stakeholder work system, yet sociotechnical systems (STS) theory has rarely been applied to it. We interviewed faculty (n=27), students with disabilities (n=9), and disability services staff (n=4), classifying expectations across stakeholder pairs as technical (formal process), social (relational quality), or both.
Two novel STS phenomena emerged. First, directional subsystem misalignment: faculty expectations of students were 60% technical, while student expectations of faculty were 58% social — a gap representing a structural joint optimization failure. Second, asymmetric bridging: staff expected both technical and social qualities from faculty (32% social), but expectations of students contained zero social codes — every staff expectation of students concerned formal process engagement. Students are the only group from whom no one expects relational quality. A secondary finding showed students shifting from 58% social (toward faculty) to 76% technical (toward staff), indicating subsystem orientation is target-specific, not a group attribute.
These findings extend macroergonomic STS theory by showing subsystem orientation varies by relational direction, and identify asymmetric bridging as a mechanism through which misalignment persists structurally rather than individually.
Two novel STS phenomena emerged. First, directional subsystem misalignment: faculty expectations of students were 60% technical, while student expectations of faculty were 58% social — a gap representing a structural joint optimization failure. Second, asymmetric bridging: staff expected both technical and social qualities from faculty (32% social), but expectations of students contained zero social codes — every staff expectation of students concerned formal process engagement. Students are the only group from whom no one expects relational quality. A secondary finding showed students shifting from 58% social (toward faculty) to 76% technical (toward staff), indicating subsystem orientation is target-specific, not a group attribute.
These findings extend macroergonomic STS theory by showing subsystem orientation varies by relational direction, and identify asymmetric bridging as a mechanism through which misalignment persists structurally rather than individually.
Contributors
Event Type
Poster
TimeWednesday, October 21st5:30pm - 6:30pm PDT
Location
Similar Presentations