“Mainstream frameworks” (Psychology, social psychology, sociology), Phenomenology, Activity theory, Structuration theory, Situated action & ethnomethodology, Distributed cognition

1. Antti Salovaara
Aalto University, School of Business
23 January 2015
Methods in User–Technology Studies
Analytical frameworks
10.45 – 11.45

2. The need for an analytical framework
“Mainstream frameworks:”
Psychology, social psychology, sociology
Phenomenology
Activity theory
Structuration theory
Situated action & ethnomethodology
Distributed cognition
Analytical frameworks

3. The need for an analytical framework
Analytical framework is not absolutely necessary…
(consider e.g. Mackay 2000 or Muller et al. 2004 papers)
… but it helps you to:
“See further” = expect what you will find and where to focus
Identify an academic contribution more easily
Justify the research methods in your publication
Go beyond superficial findings
Also, you need to show your awareness of relevant
literature anyway when you prepare your paper

4. “Mainstream frameworks”
Social psychology
Trust, social capital, self-presentation, beliefs, attitudes, intentions,
values, self-efficacy, motivation, …
Psychology
Thinking, creativity, problem-solving, expertise, personality, flow,
attention, perception, emotion, learning, …
Sociology
Power, practice, culture, …

5. Phenomenology
Originally developed by:
Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, Schutz
Adaptations to user–technology studies by:
Winograd & Flores, Dourish
Phenomenology may be useful in studies on:
User experience
Information systems in everyday life
Winograd & Flores 1986
Dourish 2001

6. Phenomenology – some key concepts
Opposition to the Cartesian dualism (e.g., psychology)
Objective physical world and a subjective mental world
“How does the world reveal itself to us through our encounters?”
Practical “being-in-the-world” (Dasein)
Unreflective orientation to the world
Tools (e.g., information systems) manifest in two roles:
“Ready-to-hand”: when they are used without problems,
unreflectively
“Present-at-hand”: when a breakdown occurs
Natural attitude
Working under an assumption that others are rational as we are,
and that their experiences are like ours
(more about this in the ethnomethodology framework)

7. Ethnomethodology & situated action
A micro-sociological theory
Originally developed by:
Garfinkel (based on Schutz’s phenomenology)
Further advanced by Sacks
Adaptation to user–technology studies by:
Suchman
(However, Heritage’s book is the best place to start)
Ethnomethodology & situated action may be
useful frameworks in studies on:
Computer-mediated human communication
Collaboration involving physical action
How humans understand computers’ operations
Heritage 1984
Suchman 1987

8. Ethnomethodology & situated action
Intersubjectivity:
How do people achieve and maintain a common understanding of the
world?
What are the mechanisms by which intersubjectivity is maintained in
practical action?
Ongoing work for intersubjectivity is the basis of social order
Morality of accountability and sanctions
People expect that others always aim for being understandable
People go out of their way in trying to ascribe meaning to even
irrational social actions
Proof: “breaching experiments”: what happens when a person,
without explanation, does not try to maintain intersubjectivity?

9. A breaching experiment
S: (waves his hand cheerily)
How are you?
E: How am I in regard to what? My health, my
finances, my school work, my peace of mind, my
…?
S: (red in the face and suddenly out of control)
Look! I was just trying to be polite. Frankly, I
don’t give a damn how you are.
Garfinkel, 1967, p. 44

10. Ethnomethodology & situated action
Turn-taking and repairs
Human interaction can be analyzed as turns
Applies also to physical interactions, not only verbal
Humans have extremely fine abilities to repair errors in
intersubjectivity
Ethnomethodological phenomena in IS research context:
Humans’ inability to notice and repair errors in electronic
communications
We notice sometimes very late that computer is not doing what we
expected, because computers are not sensitive to the interactional
details that we as humans have learned to take for granted

11. Distributed cognition
Originally developed by:
Hutchins
Related to a larger movement of embodied and
situated cognition
May be useful in studies on:
Human cooperation in technology-intensive
environments
How technologies augment human cognitive
capabilities
Division of labour between humans and
computers: computational off
Hutchins 1995

12. Distributed cognition
Analyses cognitive processes not limited to brain
When cognitive processes are carried out by humans and technologies
together
Hutchins’s study: ship navigation
Computational off-loading & redundancy
“Propagation of representational state across representational media”
Land-
mark 1
Land-
mark 2
Land-
mark 3
2. Alidade
bearings
3. Bearing
record log
1. The
world
4. Hoey 5. Chart
Image credits: See last slide

13. Applying distributed cognition (DCog)
Best applicable to systems with:
Computation or other cognitive work
Procedures that are being followed
System boundary (inside/outside)
Traditional cognitive boundary: human skin / skull
In DCog research, the boundary of interest can be specified by
the researcher
!
The world / the ship The world / the control centre
©Author

14. Affordances
Originally developed by:
Gibson (ecological psychologist interested in vision)
Adaptations to user–technology studies by:
Norman
Affordance =
an action potential that an animal perceives in
relation between itself and its physical environment
Is independent of learning!
Is a useful concept in:
Analyses of users’ situation-specific actions with IT
After Gibson, the meaning of this concept has
been greatly extended (and misused)
Gibson 1979

15. Activity theory
Originally developed by:
Vygotsky, Luria, Leontyev, then Engeström
Adaptations to user–technology studies by:
Kuutti, Nardi & Kaptelinin, Bødker
Activity theory may be useful in studies on:
How activity systems (both individuals as well as
workplaces) develop over time
Kaptelinin & Nardi 2012

16. Activity theory – some key concepts
Human interaction with the world
is mediated by tools
Physical tools (hammer)
Cognitive tools (concept of derivation)
Actions become automated
through learning
Development is continuous
Zone of proximal development
Internalization and externalization
Hierarchies of activities
Subject
Tool
Object
Activity
Action
Operation
Motive
Goal
Condition

17. Larger activity systems
Systems develop through resolution of contradictions
between its elements
Subject
Tool
Object
CommunityRules
Division
of labour (Engeström 1987)

18. Structuration theory
Originally developed by:
Giddens
Adaptations to user–technology studies by:
DeSanctis & Poole (adaptive structuration theory)
Orlikowski (early works until 2000)
Structuration theory may be useful in studies on:
Micro–macro interactions (e.g., relationships between
individuals and organizations)
Dynamics in the development of practices
How social structures are “embodied” in the designs of
technology
However, if this interests, see also Orlikowski’s
“practice lens” paper (2000)
Giddens 1984

19. Structuration theory
Is an ambitious theoretical attempt to build a bridge
between two levels of sociological theory:
Macro-level: how the societal rules shape individuals
Micro-level: how societal rules are redefined through action (e.g.,
ethnomethodology, Goffman’s frame analysis, symbolic
interactionism)
Agency:
Structuration theory is strongly voluntaristic
Human agents always “have the possibility of doing
otherwise” (Giddens, 1989, p. 258)

20. Structuration theory
Dimensions
of structure:
Dimensions
of interaction:
Linkages
(“modalities”):
Signification Domination Legitimation
Interpretive
schemes Facility Norm
Communication Power Sanction

21. Application of structuration to IS
Information systems as embodiments of social
structure:
Signification & domination ~ The structural features of
the IS
Legitimation ~ “Spirit” of technology: how system is
intended to be used
“Appropriation moves” : how individuals redefine the
structures by interacting with technology
Interpretive flexibility:
“humans always have the possibility of using the IS
otherwise”
(cf. Giddens & agency two slides before)
Suggested reading:
Jones & Karsten, MISQ 2008
DeSanctis &
Poole 1994:
Adaptive
structuration
theory
Orlikowski
1992: Duality
of technology

22. Time for a lunch!
11.45 – 12.45

23. References
DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity
of advance technology use: adaptive structuration theory.
Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of
Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. An Activity-
Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki:
Orienta-Konsultit.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual
Perception. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the
Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1989). A reply to my critics. In D. Held & J. B.
Thompson (Eds.), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony
Giddens and His Critics (pp. 249–301). Cambridge University
Press.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Jones, M. R. & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens's structuration
theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1),
127–157.
Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity Theory in HCI:
Fundamentals and Refllections. San Rafael, CA: Morgan &
Claypool.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: rethinking
the concept of technology in organizations. Organization
Science, 3(3), 398–427.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting
structures: a practice lens for studying technology in
organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The
Problem of Human–Machine Communication. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers
and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

24. Image credits
“Automatically labeled nautical chart”. Downloaded from
Wikimedia Commons. Public domain. http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nautical-chart-1.jpg