Placing Users and Nonusers at the Heart of Technology

doi:10.1017/9781316691489.007

Chapter 7 - Placing Users and Nonusers at the Heart of Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2019

Nelly Oudshoorn

Edited by

Todd L. Pittinsky

Show author details

Todd L. Pittinsky: Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, State University of New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Technologies need users. The machines built from waste materials, salvaged metal, and discarded clothing by the Swiss artist Jean Tinguely may be the only machines intended explicitly not to be used or produce anything. Inspired by Dadaism and the anticapitalist movement of the early 1960s, Tinguely aimed to “free machines” from their “slavery” in the mass production of consumer goods (Menil & Alexandre, 1980). These machines were made to disrupt the static presentation of art in conventional museums at that time and to destruct rather than produce anything (Stedelijk Museum, 2017).1 However, most machines are intended to produce consumer goods, and both depend on users. It is thus no surprise that users are an important theme in science and technology studies (STS). Criticizing a determinist linear view of technology that portrayed users as passive consumers, STS scholars have convincingly shown that users play an active role in all phases of technological development, from design to implementation and use.

Type: Chapter
Information: Science, Technology, and Society
New Perspectives and Directions
, pp. 163 - 175

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316691489.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In Bijker, W. & Law, J. (Eds.), Shaping technology—Building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–244). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (2008). Introduction: Emerging models of materiality in feminist theory. In Material feminisms (pp. 1–19). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.Google Scholar

Asaro, P. M. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: The science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10, 257–290. doi:10.1016/S0959-8022(00)00004-7Google Scholar

Bannon, L. (1991). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in system design. In Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Baumer, E., Adams, P., Khovanskaya, V. D., Liao, T. C., Smith, M. E., Sosik, V. S., & Williams, K. (2013). Limiting, leaving, and (re)lapsing: An exploration of Facebook non-use practices and experiences. In Grinter, R., Rodden, T., Aoki, P., Cutrell, E., Jeffries, R., & Olson, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3257–3266). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar

Benjamin, R. (2016). Informed refusal: Towards a justice-based bioethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41, 967–990. doi:10.1177/0162243916656059Google Scholar

Benton, C. (2000). Design and industry. In Kemp, M. (Ed.), The Oxford history of Western art (pp. 380–383). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bødker, K., Kensing, F., & Simonsen, J. (2004). Participatory IT design: Designing for business and workplace realities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society, 25, 193–204. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(03)00021-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Dalibert, L. (2014). Posthumanism and somatechnologies: Exploring the intimate relations between humans and technologies (Unpublished doctoral dissertaton). University of Enschede.Google Scholar

Dalibert, L. (2016). Living with spinal cord stimulation: Doing embodiment and incorporation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41, 635–659. doi:10.1177/0162243915617833Google Scholar

Derthick, K. (2014). Exploring meditation and technology to problematize the use or non-use binary. Paper presented at the Refusing, Limiting, Departing-Workshop@CHI. Retrieved from http://nonuse.jedbrubaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/KatieDerthick-StudyingNonUse-CHI2014-WorkshopSubmission-FINAL.pdf Google Scholar

Douglas, S. J. (1987). Inventing American broadcasting, 1899–1922. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Fischer, C. S. (1992). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Gardiner, P., & Rothwell, R. (1985). Tough customers: Good designs. Design Studies, 6, 7–17. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(85)90036-5CrossRef Google Scholar

Haraway, D. (1985). Manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80, 65–108. Retrieved from https://monoskop.org/images/4/4c/Haraway_Donna_1985_A_Manifesto_for_Cyborgs_Science_Technology_and_Socialist_Feminism_in_the_1980s.pdf Google Scholar

Hatch, M. (2013). The maker movement manifesto: Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar

Hommels, A., Mesman, J., & Bijker, W. E. (Eds.) (2014). Vulnerability in technological cultures: New directions in research and governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hyysalo, S., Elgaard Jensen, T., & Oudshoorn, N. (Eds.) (2016). The new production of users: Changing involvement strategies and innovation collectives. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

ICD User Group (2011). Remote monitoring: Access for everyone but patients [blog]. Retrieved from http://icdusergroup.blogspot.com/Google Scholar

Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jones, C. A. (2006). The mediated sensorium. In Jones, C. A. (Ed.), Sensorium: Embodied experience, technology, and contemporary art (pp. 5–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kiran, A. H., Oudshoorn, N., & Verbeek, P. P. (2015). Beyond checklists: Toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2, 5–19. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.992769CrossRef Google Scholar

Kline, R. R. (2000). Consumers in the country: Technology and social change in rural America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37, 763–795. doi:10.2307/3107097CrossRef Google Scholar

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lettow, S. (2011). Somatechnologies: Rethinking the body in philosophy of technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 15, 110–117. doi:10.5840/techne201115211Google Scholar

Loder, C. (2014). Negotiating space between use and non-use. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2014 workshop. Retrieved from http://nonuse.jedbrubaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Loder_nonuse.pdf Google Scholar

Martin, M. (1991). Hello central? Gender, technology and culture in the formation of technology systems. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar

Maxigas, P. (2012). Hacklabs and hackerspaces—Tracing two genealogies. Journal of Peer Production, 2. Retrieved from http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/hacklabs-and-hackerspaces/Google Scholar

McRuer, D. T., & Krendel, E. S. (1959). The human operator as a servo system element. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 267, 511–536. doi:10.1016/0016-0032(59)90091-2CrossRef Google Scholar

Meister, D. (1999). The history of human factors and ergonomics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Menil, F., de (Director), & Alexandre, M. (Producer) (1980). Tinguely: A kinetic cosmos [Documentary film]. United States: FPM Foundation for the Arts.Google Scholar

Nordmann, A. (2007). If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. NanoEthics, 1, 31–46. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0007-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Oost, E., van, Verhaegh, S., & Oudshoorn, N. (2009). From innovation community to community innovation: User-initiated innovation in wireless Leiden. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34, 182–205. doi:10.1177/0162243907311556Google Scholar

Oudshoorn, N. (2008). Diagnosis at a distance: The invisible work of patients and health-care professionals in cardiac telemonitoring technologies. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30, 272–295. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01032.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Oudshoorn, N. (2011). Telecare technologies and the transformation of healthcare. Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Oudshoorn, N. (2015). Sustaining cyborgs: Sensing and tuning agencies of pacemakers and ICDs. Social Studies of Science, 45, 56–76. doi:10.1177/0306312714557377Google Scholar

Oudshoorn, N. (2016). The vulnerability of cyborgs: The case of ICD shocks. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41, 767–793. doi:10.1177/0162243916633755CrossRef Google Scholar

Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (Eds.) (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pantzar, M., & Ainamo, A. (2004). Nokia, the surprising success of textbook wisdom. Comportamento Orgnizational e Gestao, 19(1), 71–86. Retrieved from http://repositorio.ispa.pt/bitstream/10400.12/4774/1/COG,%2010(1),%2071–86.pdf Google Scholar

Parikh, T. S., & Lazowska, E. D. (2006). Designing an architecture for delivering mobile information services to the rural developing world. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the World Wide Web (pp. 791–800). Edinburgh, Scotland: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/1135777.1135897Google Scholar

Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Technological dramas. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17, 282–312. doi:10.1177/016224399201700302CrossRef Google Scholar

Pinch, T., & Bijsterveld, K. (Eds.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of sound studies. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rice, T. (2010) Learning to listen: Auscultation and the transmission of auditory knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 16, 41–61. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2010.01609.xGoogle Scholar

Rohracher, H. (Ed.) (2005). User involvement in innovation processes: Strategies and limitations from a socio-technical perspective. Munchen, Germany: Profil.Google Scholar

Sandberg, A., & Bostrom, N. (2006). Converging cognitive enhancements. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093, 201–227. doi:10.1196/annals.1382.015Google Scholar

Satchell, C., & Dourish, P. (2009). Beyond the user: Use and non-use in HCI. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7 (pp. 9–16). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/1738826.1738829Google Scholar

Shapin, S. (2012). The sciences of subjectivity. Social Studies of Science, 42, 170–184. doi:10.1177/0306312711435375Google Scholar

Sobchack, V. (2006). A leg to stand on: On prosthetics, metaphor, and materiality. In Smith, M. & Morra, J. (Eds.), The prosthetic impulse: From a posthuman presence to a biocultural future (pp. 17–41). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sørenson, K., & Williams, R. (Eds.) (2002). Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces and tools. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Star, S. L., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Work, 8, 9–30. doi:10.1023/A:1008651105359Google Scholar

Stedelijk Museum (2017). Jean Tinguely: Machine spectacle [Exhibition catalog]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Author.Google Scholar

Summerton, J. (2004). Do electrons have politics? Constructing user identities in Swedish electricity. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 486–511. doi:10.1177/0162243904264487Google Scholar

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar

Thomas, D. (2002). Hacker culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human-technology relations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7, 387–395. doi:10.1007/s11097-008–9099-xGoogle Scholar

Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Voss, A., Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Slack, R. S., & Büscher, M. (Eds.) (2009). Configuring user-designer relations: Interdisciplinary perspectives. London, England: Springer.Google Scholar

Weiner, K., & Will, C. (2016). Users, non-users and “resistance” to pharmaceuticals. In Hyysalo, S., Elgaard Jensen, T., & Oudshoorn, N. (Eds.), The new production of users: Changing involvement strategies and innovation collectives (pp. 273–297). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Williams, R., Slack, R., & Stewart, J. (2005). Social learning in technological innovation—Experimenting with information and communication technologies. Cheltenham, England: Edgar Elgar.Google Scholar

Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In Law, J. (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 57–102). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wyatt, S. (2003). Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the Internet. In Oudshoorn, N. & Pinch, T. (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies (pp. 67–81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wyatt, S., Graham, T., & Terranova, T. (2002). They came, they surfed, they went back to the beach: Conceptualising use and non-use of the Internet. In Woolgar, S. (Ed.), Virtual society? Technology, cyberbole, reality (pp. 23–40). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar