Supporting Human Interaction through Digital Technology: Theory
and Practice
Jacqueline Brodie, James Evans, Laurence Brooks and Mark Perry
Department of Information Systems and Computing,
Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK
{jacqueline.brodie; james.evans; laurence.brooks; mark.perry @brunel.ac.uk}
Abstract
This paper aims to describe two approaches that Information System designers can
adopt for understanding human interaction in a social context: Structuration theory
and Contextual Design. Outlining how both perspectives can provide an effective and
systematic understanding of the interaction needs of users in real-world settings and
also facilitate the design goal of inspiring groupware designers to think about new
technologies in innovative ways, the paper also suggests a number of ways in which
these two perspectives complement each other. An example of how the methods of
Contextual Design were applied in practice to understanding and designing for mobile
work is discussed.
Introduction
This paper discusses how to more effectively support human interaction through the
use of digital technology. Its structure is composed of two interrelated sections. This
initial section of the paper makes an argument regarding how a clear understanding of
the social dimension, with accompanying organisational factors, are critical to an
understanding of human interaction and technology. It is argued that Giddens’ mature
formulation of Structuration theory may be useful in highlighting these factors
[Giddens, 1998].
The second part of the paper moves on to discuss some innovative methods used to
place Information Systems design in a social context, utilising Contextual Design
[Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998]. It briefly outlines how methods from Contextual Design
were used to capture the design requirements for a prototype technology to support
mobile workers’ opportunistic interactions with those in their communities of practice
[Wenger, 1998]. It is intended that this prototype will be tested with mobile device
users as a ‘cultural probe’ [Gavers, 1999] to explore further the relationship users
establish with digital tools to support their communicative and informational needs.
Following this, a discussion of the potential for Structuration theory and Contextual
Design to be used to enable a better understanding of the appropriation of
technologies is presented.
Social Theory and Understanding the Dynamics of Human Interaction
Social theory has an inherent part to play in understanding how technological systems
help support human interaction in the societal, organisational and personal context. It
has been argued that without social interpretation, technology can be viewed as
‘meaningless’ [Rose, 1998]. Thus, an analysis of the contextual nature of human
action may be seen as a necessary step towards formulating an understanding of
human interaction, which is crucial when attempting to effectively support group
processes using communication technologies [Qureshi, 1995]. The social forces at
work should not be considered as an external factor in the development of an effective
information system, but are integral to the degree of success or failure of a project. A
consideration of the complexity of human intentionality and the subtlety of social
1
constraint in an organizational setting is also desirable. Giddens’ formulation of
Structuration theory [Giddens, 1984] may be an appropriate lens with which to view
such phenomena.
Social constraint and human intentionality are based innately within an individuals’
capability to reflect upon the social world around them. While technical systems may
therefore relieve the actor of some agency, they still have the means by which to alter
their social environment (assuming that knowledgeability is a socially bound
construction).
In this respect Structuration theory can be seen as a significant theoretical device
within IS as it provides an ideological scheme to ‘order and inform processes of
inquiry into social life’ [Giddens, 77:1984]. At the very least, Structuration theory
attempts to reinterpret two theoretical camps at polar ends of approaches to social
theory (the structuralist emphasis on the conditioning effects of social and structural
systems and the interpretivist/phenomenological emphasis on micro-sociological
analysis), therefore, there is clear ground for scope that it can fit within the IS
discipline [Walsham and Han, 1991].
Structuration theory, as an exploratory framework for investigating social processes
surrounding the use of technological systems, can highlight the nature of the work
process, the creation and sustenance of structural properties and their influence on
social agency in a field of research where social interaction is not necessarily
geographically bound (such as in mobile work).
Structuration Theory
Structuration theory has been influential in IS research because, it can be a powerful
tool for illuminating empirical situations and analysing complex data [Walsham and
Han, 1991]. It has the potential for developing methodological frameworks based on a
logical appropriation of its main tenets [Avison et al, 2002]. It has been applied as a
meta-theory in IS research [Kling and Iacono, 1989] and has had its constituent parts
used for more specific analysis, for example the duality of structure [Orlikowski and
Robey, 1991], the nature of constraint [Jones, 1997] and the mediation between
structure and agency [Avison et al, 2002] to name but a few. While this raises
questions surrounding the validity of using only certain parts of Structuration theory
and not others (and remaining true to the main concepts of the theory itself) it does
highlight the practical nature of appropriating social theory into the IS discipline.
Using Structuration theory to inform our understanding of the social processes
involved in human interaction can help establish a greater understanding of the role of
technology within both a duality of structure and within the interaction that is
exhibited in IS, organizations and the use of a digital technology. The inherent
weakness with a great deal of research in information systems is that it considers
technology as itself a structural constraint [Jones 1997]. Because structure exists as
memory traces in human thought (realised through an understanding of reality, i.e.,
norms, values, signification, etc.) technology at best can exhibit structural tendencies.
The materiality of IT artefacts is at odds with Giddens’ conception of the social in
terms of human thought [Rose, 1998]. By exposing the subtlety of agency and the
consequent production and reproduction of the structural constraints that people are
exposed to in the social realm we can begin to see technological use as both
constraining and enabling only in relation to the rules and resources actors bring to the
2
situation through their knowledgeability and construction of reality. As Information
Systems are a mixture of people, technology and information the technology must be
viewed within this web of interaction, as Giddens’ conception of duality would
suggest, not simply as a structural force exhibiting power over the members of a said
organisation. As Rose (1998) states, ‘new technology may be the catalyst for social
change (the evolution of one discernable set of practices to another), but it may also
ossify practice and hinder change’.
The next section discusses Contextual Design, an approach which has already gained
mainstream acceptance among groupware technology designers for understanding and
designing user interaction in the social context.
Contextual Design
Contextual design is an interpretive field research methodology, developed in industry,
and used to gather and understand qualitative data with respect to users in real life
settings. Contextual Design's overall goal is to bridge the gap between the complex
open world of work and the closed world of software design [Beyer&Holtzblatt,1998].
It seeks to overcome the problems identified in traditional ethnography such as time
scales, lack of structure in the work model and usability of the ethnographic record as
a design document As a response to the failure of traditional laboratory based
usability engineering methods the purpose of Contextual Design is to avoid the decontextualisation of users and allow designers to develop new systems in context
[Vanaanen-Vainio-Mattila, & Ruuska, 1998]. The data collected using Contextual
Design methods is gathered during conversations and observations of current and
potential users in their natural setting, preferably while they are carrying out their
daily activities because,
"No job, even one as simple as printing a label is accomplished with a single tool. Design has
become difficult because systems now support almost every aspect of work life. It's up to the
design team to understand the environment their tool will be used in because it is the
combination of tools that controls their customer’s work practice." [Beyer & Holtzblatt,
1998:7]
The research involved the investigation of mobile work activities in a variety of
domains and communities of practice. This helped identify how mobile technology is
integrated into the lives of mobile workers at present and ascertain requirements for
the kinds of activities future technology could effectively support. The research opted
for a heterogeneous mix of participants to observe and interview throughout the UK.
Following on from observations and interviews, affinity diagramming, consolidated
artefact models and scenarios from Contextual Design were used to reveal “all the
issues, worries and key elements of work practice” relevant to the investigations
[Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998:155]. Moreover, they also helped to define the key design
requirements of the prototype mobile systems developed.
Research Findings
The data revealed that mobile workers seldom worked in isolation. It was observed
that they organised and coordinated their activities in conjunction with one another as
part of their wider communities of practice,
“We have a whereabouts list; a fortnightly forward look at whereabouts to where we all are....
I do look at it to see where people are and I might change something. ‘Hang on I am down on
3
Wednesday or Thursday’... <X> I have to meet up this week, can you come up Wednesday
instead?’. It prompts things. "[Communications Manager]
The need for up-to-date awareness of other people’s activities and present locations
was not always possible when mobile workers were on the move and so the
possibility of re-organising their own work activities more effectively and
opportunistically in real-time would often be lost. This resulted in unproductive
periods such as ‘dead-time’. In the fieldwork data, mobile workers attempted to
overcome the barriers for opportunistic interaction by resorting to ad hoc agreements
being made over the mobile telephone, using paper diaries and scraps of paper to
record times and places of re-negotiated meeting points and coordinated events. A
technology that supported such a need for up-to-date awareness and opportunistic reorganisation of activity schedules was implied by these findings.
Prototype Development
One of the prototype technologies that is being developed to resolve the issues
discussed above is a dynamic, lightweight collaborative to-do-list program, utilising
location-based information. This technology provides users and their communities
with opportunity to share their work activities, providing real-time information on
scheduled changes, and reorganise their work activities in conjunction with one
another.
Future Work
Evaluation of the first iteration of the prototype will take place during June/July 2003.
Contextual Design provides guidance on how to effectively conduct prototyping
interviews and feed the data gathered back into the creation of new prototypes. These
prototyping interviews are different from traditional usability testing because, as
Beyer and Holtzblatt note, usability tests typically seek to measure users' performance
on set tasks to ensure they can be done reasonably efficiently. But the goal for
Contextual Design usability testing is to discover a better system structure so together
"user and designer can explore how the system will impact the work and how work is
likely to change in the future as a result" [Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998:375]. The
research seeks to provide a fuller understanding of mobile work in terms of the
appropriateness of the information representation used in the prototypes and indicate
potential future design iterations [Gavers et al,1999].
Discussion
Having given a brief description of Structuration theory and outlined Contextual
Design as an approach to the study of mobile worker interaction in communities of
practice, the paper now suggests three areas of convergence between the two. These
points may help highlight further research findings. These areas are, 1) the situated
nature of the agent, 2) the use of technology and the extent to which this use
influences design and practice in the mobile workforce and finally and most
importantly, the degree of system integration established through time-space
distanciation.
The research described relies on the notion that in any given situation the agents
involved in interaction will bring with them a highly personal and contextual view of
the world. The use of technology and the establishment of bonds within a community
of practice that reinforce future interaction with be inherently affected by this. By
focussing on the situated actor, the nature of this interaction can be better understood.
At the technical level, contextual design enables designers to develop new systems
4
within a given context. At the social level, Structuration theory can help to sensitise
the concept that any system designed in such a way may at the same time, not be used
in one specific manner, as it will be used by situated actors, both in a constraining and
enabling way [Rose, 1999]. This has the potential to give insight into the
appropriation or not of specific digital technologies.
Secondly, Contextual Design methods of data collection are qualitative in nature
because, designing a technical system involves a large number of variables, both
technical and social. Structuration theory can help in an analysis of data by
acknowledging that technology itself, within this system can only exhibit structural
traits. This leads to a focus on what establishes these structural traits. Research
surrounding mobile workers and digital technologies can benefit from this because it
may provide an appreciation of why some technologies are successfully used by
groups and why other systems fail or are not used as intended. This is clearly
important when developing a prototype technology, especially when communities of
practice are formed over geographically ambiguous areas, because it has to meet the
needs of its users for it to be fully accepted.
This leads to the final and possibly most important point of convergence, an
appreciation of the degree of system integration of human interaction. System
integration refers to reciprocities between absent agents, agents that are not in
physical proximity to one another [Rose, 1999]. In this context, it is important to
establish how mobile workers in their communities of practice enforce interaction of
this kind. Digital technology is an integral part of this interaction, but the underlying
social processes behind this could be elucidated through Structuration theory and the
notion of time-space distanciation. As this involves the ‘stretching of social systems
across time-space, on the basis of mechanisms of social and system integration’
[Giddens, 1984], recursive and reflexive processes of understanding (structuration)
are continually produced and reproduced. In this context, structures (properties that
make it possible for similar social practices to exist across spans of time-space giving
them systemic form) are embedded between people over geographical distance. Over
time these practises become stronger and more stable leading to the emergence of
routines. These routines may be seen as important when analysing the effect of digital
technology on mobile workers because the technology developed will have an
important role to play in this routinisation [Giddens, 1984]. It may be considered as
the foundation of this social linkage. If a greater understanding of the role of this
technology in the creation of this interaction and behaviour is achieved more support
can be provided for work processes between groups and individuals themselves.
Conclusion
This paper has presented an overview of two approaches that have been adopted for
understanding user interaction in context. It is apparent that both approaches afford us
a theoretical and methodological lens by which to sensitise us to the social and
organisational aspects of technological use in the workplace. However, there are
limitations to both approaches which must be realised and accepted by those who
decide to adopt them in their research. Despite their limitations though, both offer the
often over-looked potential to explore the social side of technology in an effective and
systematic fashion. Thereby, providing information system designers with reflections
and insights that can help shape the creation of digital tools to support productive
human interaction in novel and, until now, undreamt of ways.
5
References
Avison, D.E., Wood-Harper, A.T., Vidgen, R. and J.R.G. Wood. (2002). “A Further
Exploration into Information Systems Development: The Evolution of Multiview2”.
Information, Technology and People. 11 (2): 124-139
Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt K. Contextual Design. San Francisco. Morgan Kaufman (1998).
Brodie, J. & Perry, M. Designing for Mobility, Collaboration and Information use by
Blue-Collar Workers. (2001) ACM SigGroup Bulletin, 22 (3), p. 21-27. December 2001.
ACM Press
Brooks, L. (1997). "Structuration theory and new technology: analysing organisationally
situated computer -aided design (CAD)." Information Systems Journal 7: 133-151.
Gavers, W, Dunne T, and Pacenti, E (1999) Cultural probes. ACM interactions Magazine,
January- February,21-29.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity
Iacucci, G, Kuutti, K and Ranta, M. (2002) On the Move with a Magic Thing: Role
Playing in Concept Design of Mobile Services and Devices. DIS ’00, New York.
Jones, M. (1997). “Structuration and IS” in Currie, W.L. and R.D. Galliers. Rethinking
Management Information Systems. Oxford University Press: Oxford
Kling, R. and Iacono. (1989) “The institutional Character of Computerized Information
Systems”. Office: Technology and People 5 (1): 7-28
Orlikowski, W. (1992) “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of
Technology in Organisations”. Organisational Science. 3 (3):398-427
Orlikowski, W. and D. Robey. (1991) “IT and the Structuring Of Organisations”.
Information Systems Research 2 (2): 143-169
Qureshi, S. (1995). "Supporting Electronic Group Processes: A Social Perspective." ACM:
24-34.
Rose, J. (1998) Evaluating The Contribution Of Structuration Theory to the Information
Systems Discipline. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Information Systems,
Granada, Spain.
Rose, J. (1999) Structurational Theory Of IS - Theory Development and Case Study
Illustrations. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference On information Systems,
Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School.
Vanaanen-Vainio-Mattila, K. & Ruuska, S. (1998) User needs for mobile communication
devices. First Workshop on HCI for Mobile Devices, Glasgow, Scotland, May 1998.
Walsham, G. and C. Han (1991). "Structuration Theory and Information Systems
Research." Journal Of Applied Systems Analysis 17: 77-84.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
6