Inuse seminar Nov 20, 2012 Salovaara

Crea%ve technology use — cogni%ve and behavioral fundaments An9 Salovaara, Aalto University School of Business INUSE seminar 20 November 2012

Discovering the use of a digital camera as a mirror: an example of “repurposive appropria%on”

Repurposive appropria%on:

Discovery of a novel purpose of use By an individual or a group

COMPARE TO:

Integra%on of technology into prac%ce Increased mastery of a tool

Learning from others

Appropria%on: defini%ons in literature Interpretation! Field of research / Framework!

Invention of new purposes of use! Design!

Improvisation! CSCW / Ethnomethodology!

Customisation and adaptation! End-user computing!

Trying new features of technologies! Information Systems!

Integration into existing practice! CSCW!

—”—! Information Systems / Social construction of technology!

Renewal of structures of work! Organisation studies / Structuration theory!

Making the technology one’s own! Sociology of consumption / Domestication!

—”—! End-user computing / Sensemaking!

—”—! CSCW / Activity theory!

Cogni&ve Science

!

IN-‐SITU OBSERVATION CHI2006

IN-‐SITU OBSERVATION CHI2007

PERIODIC INTERVIEWING CHI2007

WEB SURVEY J Am Soc Info Sci Tech 2012

Individuals maZer

In digital camera use,

over 50% of crea%ve uses are discovered alone by the user

Previous experience (e.g. on cameras)

Environment and

other people

Technologies at hand

Current solu%on aZempt

Everyday problem solving

How a repurposive appropria%on can take place: 3 cogni%ve explana%ons

Example: How the camera-‐as-‐mirror workaround can be discovered?

1. Recogni%on of par%al solu%on in the environment

E.g.: You see someone taking a picture of another person, which reminds you of the camera phone in your pocket

2. Solu%on through generaliza%on of problem

E.g.: You no%ce that mirroring is generally related to seeing yourself, and you figure out other ways of seeing yourself


3. No%cing a tool with analogical effects

E.g.: You no%ce that camera phones also


2. Solu%on through generaliza%on of problem

Some theore%cal implica%ons

•  Importance of individual cogni%ve processes •  Importance of technology undersatnding •  Repurposive appropria%on as problem-‐solving

•  Focus on breadth-‐oriented knowledge •  Focus on problem solving tools (analogies), not solu%on strategies (e.g., means-‐ends)

Prac%%oner’s take-‐away

•  Design for crea%ve users •  Make features observable •  Provide hints on possible effects to facilitate interpreta%on

•  Provide cross-‐technology connec%vity

•  Allow experimenta%on •  Support both old and new ways of use

Ongoing & future work

Crea%ve Use

Call for PhD students @ Aalto BIZ

•  Deadline 15 January 2013 •  Opportunity for a funded posi%on

•  More info: Google: “Aalto Applying for doctoral studies” or hZps://into.aalto.fi/display/endoctoralbiz/ Applying+for+doctoral+studies

Propaga%on of crea%ve uses in organiza%ons

•  Social Network Analysis: –  “who invents?” –  “who learns from whom?”

•  Iden%fica%ons of social roles: –  Inventors, mediators, normal workers

– Do inventors have “courts”?

How do different workers differ?

•  Different appropriators in organiza%ons: – Tinkerers, programmers, mediators, normal workers (MacLean et al., CHI1990)

– Worker differences have not been studied systema%cally

•  Use SNA results to iden%fy different workers –  In-‐depth comparison (ethnographic + psychometric)

Does technology understanding increase repurposive appropria%on?

•  Our web survey* found that technology understanding is strongest predictor of repurposive appropria%on –  But regression studies are correla%onal, not causal

•  Longitudinal study:

* Salovaara, Helfenstein, Oulasvirta, A. (2011). Everyday appropria%ons of informa%on technology: A study of crea%ve uses of digital cameras. Journal of the American Society for Informa%on Science and Technology

Beginning End

Crea%ve use

Tech understanding Self-‐efficacy

Perceived usefulness Personal innova%veness

Crea%ve use

Tech understanding Self-‐efficacy

Perceived usefulness Personal innova%veness

Empirical refuta%on of TAM

•  Technology acceptance models are ambiguous and may be tautological

Perceived usefulness (PU): 1.  Using the system in my job would enable me to accomplish tasks more

quickly. 2.  Using the system would improve my job performance. 3.  Using the system in my job would increase my produc%vity. 4.  Using the system would enhance my effec%veness on the job. 5.  Using the system would make it easier to do my job. 6.  I would find the system useful in my job. Use (U): Amount or frequency of use

U

PU

Publica%ons •  Salovaara, A., Jacucci, G., Oulasvirta, A., Saari, T., Kanerva, P., Kurvinen, E., and

TiiZa, S. (2006). Collec%ve crea%on and sense-‐making of mobile media. CHI 2006. •  Jacucci, G., Oulasvirta, A., Ilmonen, T., Evans, J., and Salovaara, A. (2007). CoMedia:

Mobile group media for ac%ve spectatorship. CHI2007. •  Salovaara, A. (2007). Appropria%on of a MMS-‐based comic creator: From system

func%onali%es to resources for ac%on. CHI2007. •  Salovaara, A. (2008). Inven%ng new uses for tools: A cogni%ve founda%on for

studies on appropria%on. Human Technology. •  Salovaara, A. and Tamminen, S. (2009). Acceptance or appropria%on? A design-‐

oriented cri%que on technology acceptance models. In Saariluoma, P. and Isomäki, H. (eds.), Future Interac%on Design II, Springer.

•  Salovaara, A., Helfenstein, S., and Oulasvirta, A. (2011). Everyday appropria%ons of informa%on technology: A study of crea%ve uses of digi-‐ tal cameras. Journal of the American Society for Informa%on Science and Technology.

Available in PDF from people.aalto.fi/an9_salovaara

Inuse seminar Nov 20, 2012 Salovaara

Documents

Transcript of Inuse seminar Nov 20, 2012 Salovaara