This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Domestic PC Production in the Soviet Baltic States 1977-1992 Laur Kanger PhD The University of Edinburgh 2013 Abstract The thesis argues for the necessity and value of a two-way interaction between high- level abstractions and rich historical narratives mediated by middle-range theories. The basic assumptions of critical realism are used to derive a socio-technical metatheory which, in turn, structures the synthesis of specific substantive theories. The conceptual tools provided by the Multi-Level Perspective, Analytical Sociology and (Technological) Systems of Innovation frameworks guide the study of the cases. The empirical core of the thesis consists of detailed histories of the birth, development and decay of ten different personal computer production attempts in the Soviet Baltic states roughly between 1977 and 1992. In order to generalize from the historical narratives a novel analytical technique is developed and employed. The resulting middle-range theorization locates the mechanisms and patterns of the evolution of these cases on three different levels of aggregation: intra-case, inter-case and system-level. Finally, the study makes analytical contributions to the socio- technical metatheory and provides philosophical justifications based on actual research practice for retaining the realist position. 1 Table of contents Acknowledgements 4 Introduction 5 1. Theoretical framework 15 1.1Three levels of abstraction 15 1.2Level one: critical realist philosophy 21 1.3Level two: socio-technical metatheory 23 1.4Level three: specific substantive theories 35 1.4.1 Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) 36 1.4.2 Desires-Beliefs-Opportunities framework (DBO) 41 1.4.3 Systems of Innovation (SI) 43 1.4.4 Towards research-specific application: assessing the 46 three types of compatibility 2. Approaching the data 56 2.1Elder-Vass's seven requirements 56 2.2Process theory 59 2.3Mechanisms revisited 65 2.4Case study 70 2.5Selection, assemblage and triangulation: on the nature of 74 historical sociology 3. Historical narratives 83 3.1 Estonia 89 3.1.1 Juku 89 3.1.2 Tartu 112 3.1.3 Entel 122 3.2 Lithuania 129 3.2.1 Developments in the education sector and BK-0010Š 129 3.2.2 Santaka 137 3.2.3 Sigma and the education sector: Poisk and Sigma 8800 144 2 3.2.4 Lema and its PC/XT 155 3.3 Latvia 160 3.3.1 VEFormika and VEF Mikro series 160 3.3.2 Latvian response to the school computerization 168 initiative 3.3.3 VEF and others: experiments from the mid-1980s and 173 onwards 4. Middle-range analysis 179 4.1 From narrative to theory: what is involved and how to do it? 179 4.2 Intra-case analysis 192 4.2.1 Step one: detecting the key nodes 192 4.2.2 Step two: from key nodes to key node sequences 201 4.2.3 Step three: inserting the multi-level interaction 207 4.2.4 Making sense of the findings 240 4.3 Inter-case analysis 252 4.4 System-level analysis 259 5. Higher-level generalizations 264 5.1 Basic causal forces 265 5.2 Towards a typology of rules 270 5.3 How do rules come to be and how do they diffuse? 282 A tentative sketch 5.4 Justifying realism 286 Conclusions and discussion 294 Bibliography 316 Appendix A. Interviewees and their organizational affiliations 329 Appendix B. Key node sequence maps 333 3 Acknowledgements During this research effort I have had the splendid opportunity and an immense pleasure to benefit from climbing on the shoulders of giants. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the following people: Gerard Alberts, Ričardas Ališauskas, Neil Bennet, David Bloor, Sara Cannizzaro, Piret Ehrenpreis, Dave Elder-Vass, Frank Geels, Peter Hedström, Indrek Ibrus, Ieva Jonaitytė, Donald MacKenzie, Olaf Mertelsmann, Linda Põõsas-Ümarik, Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, Meelis Roos, Stewart Russell, Andrejs Skuja, Siimu Surnupesuvesi, Graham Thomas, Kristjan Vassil and Robin Williams. You know what you did, enabled me to do or prevented me from doing. Thank you for that. 4 Introduction In the following pages the reader will find a history and analysis of various attempts to design and/or produce personal computers (PCs) in the three Soviet Baltic states— Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—roughly between 1977 and 1992. I will explain how and why each project came to be, how they evolved, experienced various setbacks and accelerations, and finally, how and why they were stopped, some more abruptly than others. In so doing I will cast light on the little-researched empirical domain of Soviet (personal) computing while also aiming to make methodological and theoretical contributions. To understand the choice of topic and focus of the research I have to dwell a little on my personal background. From 2005 to 2007 I, at the time a new master's student in media and communication studies at the University of Tartu, Estonia, was engaged in research on the theories of information society. While wading through the literature I also obtained some knowledge about the history of computing, at first largely as an unintended consequence. However, at one point I realized that the experience of the Soviet Bloc was largely neglected in these accounts, whether historical or sociological. Therefore, to continue my studies I decided to focus more on empirical research and to study the history of computing in my native country, Estonia, thinking that I could cover developments from the 1950s to the early 1990s. In line with my training I aimed not only to write a history but also to derive some more general statements from the narrative. In brief: to theorize it. Unfortunately, searching the literature in the domains of mainstream sociology and media and communication studies revealed something frustrating: although technologies were mentioned quite often in various writings there were only a few frameworks which actually tried to make them part and parcel of the theory. What seemed to be largely missing was a theorization of technology. Nevertheless various traces and references in these accounts soon led me to the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS). What started as one year in London to learn about the 5 field in more depth ended with my becoming a PhD student in STS in Edinburgh. By that time I had already assembled some material about the school computer called Juku which was designed and produced in Soviet Estonia. During the course of the research I found that there had been other attempts to build computers in Estonia. At this point many specific questions emerged. Why did a small country with a population of about 1.5 million people and without a computer industry decide to take up such projects when there were huge industries in the USSR devoted to computer production? What part, if any, did the school computerization initiative play in other Estonian attempts? Moreover, was the Estonian experience somewhat exceptional and if so, to what extent? Therefore I decided to re-focus my study on the comparison of various attempts at PC-building in all three Baltic countries, supposing that because of the shared historical experience of being incorporated into the Soviet Union the similarities between the three far outweighed the differences. These are the data-driven aspects of the story. But my increasing familiarity with STS also shaped the project in important ways. Specifically, I began to observe some common traits seemingly shared by a large number of works in the field. An almost unequivocal denial of technological determinism was one of them—a case well- made and difficult to disagree with. Heavy reliance on case studies was another such trait. Rich, complex and interesting case descriptions could often be found. So far, so good. But there were six other traits which in my opinion are more problematic: arguably three would characterize the 'constructivist' camp of STS (often represented in journals such as Science, Technology, & Human Values or Social Studies of Science), one would belong to the more pragmatic innovation and management- oriented part of the community (e.g. Research Policy, Technological Forecasting & Social Change) while two would seem to be shared by both. Below, I briefly describe each of these traits. 'Data first, theory second.' This idea highlights an excessive focus on the varieties and nuances of the empirical parts of case studies. Works like this created an 6 impression that most of the intellectual energy had been spent on story-telling and there was little left for framing the research with theoretical categories or provision of middle-range theoretical results. At times it even seemed that the theory was whatever happened to be sticking out once the story had been told. As a result good theoretical tools proved more difficult to find than I had initially presumed. 'Truth is in the detail.' Although not necessarily a consequence of the first trait, data- oriented works quite often tended to be characterized by micro-level focus (small unit of analysis), narrow temporal range or both.