Shared Values and Value Conflicts:
A Framework forIdentifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
December 7, 2011
by
Jes A. Koepfler
Graduate Research Associate
Information Policy & Access Center
College of Information Studies
University of Maryland, College Park
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
Abstract
This study developed and deployed a set of value statements, called portraits, to apply and test a
framework for identifying values of interest for multiple stakeholders engaged in a value-centered design
process. Participants completed a set of contextualized value portraits and follow-up questions using a
web-based questionnaire disseminated through Twitter (n=132). The correlation analyses used to apply
and test the framework showed significant relationships between all stakeholders and the value of
broadmindedness and between several stakeholders and spirituality, indicating potential shared values of
interest. Potentially divergent or conflicting values of interest included wealth and equality (associated with
those who had experienced homelessness), and identity and connectedness (associated with those who
had donated money to an organization related to homelessness in the last twelve months). These findings
are a first step towards designing and testing a framework for identifying values of interest in the service of
multi-stakeholder design, using the social context of homelessness and the communication context of
Twitter as an initial case study. The framework and its associated research instruments contribute to a
growing number of tools to support values researchers and designers in operationalizing and explicating
values for design.
Keywords
Homelessness, social services, values in design, informal communication, multiple stakeholders, Twitter
Introduction
Values, or “guiding principles of what people consider important in life” (Cheng & Fleischmann,
2010), are criteria that people use to evaluate their behaviors, respond to people they encounter, and make
judgments about events. They help explain certain behaviors like charitable giving (Bennett, 2002). They
also shape the technologies we create and guide our information behaviors and practices (Fleischmann,
2006, 2007; Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1996; Shilton, 2010). Web-supported information and
communication tools facilitate different forms of value expression and value support for diverse users and
their associated stakeholder groups, including the homeless. One of the first of these types of tools in the
United States, the Public Electronic Network (PEN), was created in 1989 in Santa Monica, CA. By the mid1990s PEN had more than 85,000 Santa Monica residents registered to it, of which at least 200 were
individuals experiencing homelessness (Van Tassel, 1996). Homeless resident, Donald Paschal, reflected
on the value of PEN, evoking values of equality, identity, and participation, among others:
…No one on PEN knew that I was homeless until I told them. After I told them, I was still
treated like a human being. To me, the most remarkable thing about the PEN community is
that a city councilmember and a pauper can coexist, albeit not always in perfect harmony,
but on an equal basis. I have met, become friends with, or perhaps adversaries with,
people I would otherwise not know of – even if I were homed. (Donald Paschal, homeless
resident, PEN, 1996)
A growing body of research in information science and human computer interaction emphasizes
theses values and key stakeholders for the design of new informal communication tools like social media,
shelter-based communication systems, and mobile technologies (Koepfler & Fleischmann, 2012; Le Dantec
et al. 2010; Woelfer et al., 2011). In these studies, values often emerge ad hoc in relation to the social
J. A. Koepfler
1
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
context of homelessness and the communication context of the technology of interest. In this paper, I
provide a framework for identifying values of interest a priori for the purposes of multi-stakeholder, valuescentered design, and apply that framework in the social services domain within an informal communication
context. I test the framework using a set of contextualized value portraits deployed through a web-based
questionnaire on Twitter to generate values of interest, or shared values and conflicting values that may be
considered for the design of future technologies.
I have organized the rest of the paper as follows. In the background section, I provide an overview
of the contemporary literatures on homelessness, values in research and design, and Twitter as an informal
communication context emphasizing the areas where these literatures converge. Next, I describe how each
component of the framework emerged from prior research and illustrate the points of intersection between
each component. In the methods section, I describe the tools and procedures used to apply and test the
framework and the measures I used to study contextualized values. I then show how the results of the
analysis support the framework by identifying values of interest among the stakeholder groups in the social
services domain. I then discuss how the design of the study may have influenced the findings, and suggest
approaches that could allow future research to overcome these limitations. I conclude by discussing the
implications of the framework and the values portraits as tools for value-centered design in other social and
communication contexts.
Background
Homelessness and technology
Each year roughly 3.5 million people in the United States experience homelessness (National Law
Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2007). Since the 2008 economic downturn and home foreclosure
crisis, rates of homelessness have increased (Sermons & Witte, 2011). The McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (United States Code, in Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I, 1986) defines a homeless
person as an individual who may be sheltered or unsheltered, doubled-up or in transition, living in cars or
campers, and experiencing homelessness episodically or chronically. The Act has resulted in programs for
shelter, food, healthcare, and transitional housing, helping many Americans regain housing stability
(National Coalition for the Homeless, 2006). One weakness of the Act is that it responds primarily to
symptoms of homelessness rather than its causes or effects, leaving a gap in services for homelessness
prevention or social support for individuals who have exited homelessness, or who might be unwilling to
access social services. Online communities supported by informal communication tools, like Twitter,
provide unique opportunities to bridge this gap.
Though individuals experiencing homelessness lack certain types of material resources, research
shows that many individuals access web-based services through mobile devices, personal computers, and
public computer labs in libraries and other public spaces. A national study found that 44% of people in
households below the poverty line accessed the Internet at public libraries (Becker et al., 2010). A
quantitative study in Philadelphia (Eyrich-Garg, 2010) and a qualitative study in Atlanta (Le Dantec &
Edwards, 2008) found that many homeless individuals (both sheltered and unsheltered) had mobile phones
that they used to connect with family, friends, and social service providers. Possession of mobile devices
was also found to increase perceptions of safety and security among homeless young people (Woelfer et
al., 2011; Woelfer & Hendry, 2011). Additionally, a recent study with homeless youth in New York (Daniels,
Under Review) and another with homeless adults in Atlanta (Le Dantec, 2008), highlighted mobile devices
and Internet access as a basic human need on par with food and shelter, which were often easier to access
than cell phone minutes.
J. A. Koepfler
2
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
These studies shift not only how we think about homelessness in the 21st century, but also how we
conceptualize basic human needs and the impact that information and communication tools and broadband
access can have in empowering and supporting the values of individuals associated with homelessness.
Values in research and design for technologies that support homelessness
Though values research has not yet focused explicitly on the impact that experiences of
homelessness might have on personal values and subsequent behaviors, studies have shown that factors
such as traumatic experiences, economic hardship, social class, and unemployment can affect an
individual’s values (Feather, 1975, 1985, 1992; Inglehart, 1997). Feather (1985) found that the explanations
people gave for events such as poverty and unemployment could be understood as both a product of an
individual’s internal value system as well as the effects of one’s larger social context channeled through
family, school, or other sources of influence. Inglehart (1997) found that people who suffered from
economic hardship and social upheaval attributed more importance to power and security values than
those who lived in relative comfort and safety.
Values also shape and are shaped by our information behaviors and technology adoption practices
(Friedman & Freier, 2004; Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1996). An individual who prioritizes connectedness
and participation above other values may gravitate more readily towards an online tool that affords ease of
connections with a low barrier to entry. Design approaches that incorporate values promote an awareness
of values throughout the technology design process for all of the stakeholders involved (Friedman, 1997;
Friedman & Kahn, 1992; Friedman, Kahn, & Borning, 2006; Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1996). Information
science and human-computer interaction researchers have explored values both to design systems for and
with individuals experiencing homelessness, and to study the role of information and communication tools
in homelessness experiences from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. For example, Le Dantec and
colleagues (Le Dantec, Christensen et al., 2010; Le Dantec, Farrell et al. 2010) employed values in the
design of a Community Resource Messenger at an emergency homeless shelter for single mothers. In their
design process, they emphasized the values of both the homeless mothers and the social service providers
at the shelter in the development of this context-specific informal communication tool. Further, Woelfer,
Hendry and colleagues (Hendry et al., 2011; Woelfer & Hendry, 2010) considered the values of homeless
young people (aged 13-25) and shelter staff members while a community technology center was integrated
into a homeless shelter in Seattle, WA. They found that stakeholder values emerged from two social
contexts: life on the street and work in the technology center.
Informal communication tools, homelessness, and values
Microblogging is a type of online informal communication in which individuals broadcast short textbased messages to a network of individuals (real or perceived) (Zhao & Rosson, 2009). Research has
shown that informal communication plays a unique role in different social contexts. For example, in a
workplace environment, informal communication has supported collaborative work and office culture by
maintaining connections and a sense of belonging between co-workers (Kraut et al., 1993; Whittaker et al.,
1994; Nardi, 2005). Twitter (founded in 2006) is currently the most popular microblogging tool in the United
States. It enables a unique type of informal communication in the form of 140-character posts, called
tweets. Through tweets and other syntax (the at-mention and at-reply [@], retweet [RT], hashtag [#]) Twitter
users share and seek information and resources as well as express attitudes, opinions, and beliefs about a
topic (i.e. values) (Java et al., 2007).
Twitter works on most devices through wireless, 3G (third generation mobile telecommunications),
and even SMS (short message service) technologies. Due to its low barriers to entry, Twitter provides a
space for multiple social groups to coexist, creating the potential for discourse to evolve in ways that might
J. A. Koepfler
3
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
not otherwise occur in offline contexts (Marwick & boyd, 2011). Zhao & Rosson (2009) suggest that the
informal communication that happens on a site like Twitter may increase the formation of weak ties
(Granovetter, 1973) and thus the sharing and gaining of novel information especially valuable to individuals
trying to exit homelessness.
A number of web-based projects related to homelessness (e.g. Invisible People,
www.invisiblepeople.tv; STREATS, www.streats.tv; Underheard in New York, www.underheardinny.com)
have begun to harness the potential of informal communication. One such project, called We Are Visible
(www.wearevisible.com), encourages individuals experiencing or who have experienced homelessness to
use Twitter to self-advocate, find social support, and help others. A Twitter user experiencing
homelessness reflects on the same potential for Twitter to support individuals experiencing homelessness
as Donald Paschal did for PEN nearly 15 years ago:
Before we got involved in social media, we felt no one cared we were homeless. I got mad
and went to Twitter just to vent my frustrations. We soon met people, some homeless and
some not, who all seemed to have one thing in common: they did care. For the first time in
months, I felt we had a voice. This was a huge boost. Through Twitter, one person set up
food being delivered to us. …we found a friend who made a flyer for us asking people if
they had work, which has led to one job so far. I believe everyone can benefit from social
media, and we try to help others in our area connect and have a voice too.
(@alleycat22469, homeless individual on Twitter, We Are Visible, 2010)
These projects highlight the ways in which the context of informal communication can support the
values of individuals experiencing homelessness and other associated stakeholders. In the sections that
follow, I propose a framework for bringing these concepts together more explicitly and then take a first step
towards testing and validating that framework.
A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest
Values of interest
I define values of interest as key values that emerge among diverse groups of stakeholders during
a value-centered design process, which have the potential to dramatically shape or alter group practice
and/or the resulting design products. Values of interest may be shared values that serve as boundary
objects for design team members to coalesce around, like privacy in Shilton’s study (2010). Shared values
provide a common ground and help to initiate conversations about values in design teams, what Shilton
calls “values levers”. Values of interest may also be conflicting values, or values that diverge among the
stakeholders. They may be values for which stakeholders hold different points of view, such as honesty in
Fleischmann and Wallace’s study (2010), or values that some groups prioritize more than others, such as
wealth and identity in Koepfler and Fleischmann’s study (2012). Because these values emerge from the
interactions of several stakeholders, designers are often forced to tackle them as they arise, which may
slow down the design process or affect group cohesion in the design team. I propose a framework for
identifying values of interest among multiple stakeholders to help identify what those shared and conflicting
values might be at the start of a design project. With such knowledge, designers may be able to utilize
values proactively for design efforts rather than reacting to them.
I have identified three intersecting components to the framework – key stakeholders in the domain
of interest, values associated with the communication context, and values associated with the social
context – based on three exploratory studies that examined the intersection of homelessness, values, and
J. A. Koepfler
4
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
informal communication. In the sections that follow, I briefly summarize each study and how it contributes to
the framework illustrated in Figure 1 at the end of this section.
Key stakeholders in the domain of interest
In Study 1 (Koepfler & Hansen, 2012), my collaborator and I used social network analysis to
identify key stakeholders related to homelessness in an online Twitter network called @WeAreVisible (see
www.wearevisible.com for a detail description of this project). We analyzed the public Twitter profiles of
each node in the network to determine how the individuals in it self-identified. We found eleven types of
stakeholders: Homeless/Formerly Homeless, Homeless Advocate, Celebrity, Do-gooder, Service Provider,
Non-profit Generalist, Social Media Enthusiast, Support Organization, Social Worker, Librarian, and
Researcher. To determine which groups among these were key stakeholders, we analyzed the network
structure using a clustering algorithm, which determined groups based on their underlying patterns of social
ties (follower/following relationships) rather than their formal group memberships. The analysis showed
three main clusters with five key stakeholder groups: 1) a small, dense cluster of Homeless/Formerly
Homeless individuals sparsely connected to a 2) second larger cluster of Support Organizations and
Homeless Advocates, which were both connected to a third even larger cluster comprised mainly of Social
Media Enthusiasts and Do-gooders.
The cluster analyses and stakeholder group attributes raised interesting questions about
participation in this multi-stakeholder community. What was sustaining the denseness of the clusters at a
social level? What were the patterns of communication supporting the between-group connections and how
might design or social interventions make those inter-group ties stronger? Study 1 highlights the
importance of identifying key stakeholders related to the domain of interest and the technological context of
interest. It also identifies a salient value related to the informal communication context, which we built upon
in Study 2.
Values associated with the communication context
In Study 2 (Koepfler & Fleischmann, 2011), my collaborator and I used thematic analysis to study
values in a corpus of tweets. In particular, we were interested in whether an existing values inventory,
called the Meta-Inventory of Human Values (MIHV; Cheng & Fleischmann, 2010), was an appropriate
framework for assessing values in informal communication. The MIHV is a holistic values framework that
integrates values and definitions from twelve value inventories (Bernthal, 1962; Bird & Waters, 1987; Crace
& Brown, 1995; England, 1967; Friedman et al., 2006; Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004; Kahle et al., 1988;
McDonald & Gandz, 1991; Ravlin & Meglino, 1987; Rokeach, 1973; Scott, 1965; Schwartz, 1994).
Specifically, Cheng & Fleischmann (2010) identified sixteen meta-values that appeared in at least five of
the twelve inventories – achievement, wealth, helpfulness, competence, security, identity, spirituality,
broadmindedness, justice, innovation, equality, honesty, intelligence, responsibility, freedom, and social
order – and discarded concepts that appeared four or fewer times. (For detailed definitions of each of these
values, please see additional works by these authors, e.g. Cheng et al., 2010; Cheng & Fleischmann,
Under Review). The authors then developed and tested the framework using a corpus of formal
proceedings from the Net neutrality debate (Cheng, et al., 2010, Under Review). Their studies showed that
the meta-inventory was robust within this formal communication context.
For our study, we applied the MIHV to tweets to determine if all sixteen of the inventory’s values
occurred and to see if additional values emerged as a result of the context shift from formal to informal. The
results showed that all of the values appeared, and that two additional values emerged with equal salience
– connectedness (referred to as sense of belonging (Kahle et al., 1988) or belonging (Schwartz, 1994;
Crace & Brown, 1995) and comfort (also referred to as a comfortable life (Rokeach, 1973)). In addition to
J. A. Koepfler
5
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
participation from Study 1, Study 2 highlights additional values related to the informal communication
context. We referred to this new set of values as the Meta-Inventory of Human Values for Informal
Communication (MIHV-IC) and deployed it in Study 3 using content analysis.
Values associated with the social context
In Study 3 (Koepfler & Fleischann, 2012), we were interested in using the MIHV-IC to determine
whether values in informal communication were expressed differently based on one’s social context. For
this study, we compared a corpus of tweets from individuals who self-identified as homeless or formerly
homeless to a corpus of tweets from individuals who did not identify as associating with homelessness. We
analyzed 5,313 tweets from 32 individuals and found significant differences between the two corpuses for
wealth, helpfulness, identity, spirituality, broadmindedness, justice, equality, responsibility, and freedom. In
every case, tweets from the homeless or formerly homeless individuals expressed these values more often
than the tweets from the comparison group. These findings make up the third component of the framework
and highlight a set of values to consider within the social context of homelessness.
Framework for Identifying Values of Interest
From these studies and the literature that supports them, I propose a framework for identifying
values of interest among multiple stakeholders in a value-centered design process, illustrated in Figure 1,
below.
KEY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS from the issue/domain of interest VALUES OF INTEREST VALUES of the COMMUNICATION CONTEXT VALUES of the SOCIAL CONTEXT Figure 1. Framework for identifying values of interest in multi-stakeholder design
This framework implies that there are areas of intersection between the salient values of the social
context, in this case, individuals who have or are currently experiencing homelessness, and the salient
values associated with the communication context, in this case, informal communication on Twitter. It also
suggests relationships between the key stakeholders related to the domain of interest (i.e. social services)
and the salient values of the social and communication contexts. What emerge from these intersections are
J. A. Koepfler
6
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
values of interest, comprised of values that are shared between stakeholders as well as values that are
conflicting or divergent. In the following sections, I describe a first step towards applying and testing this
framework using contextualized value portraits disseminated as part of a web-based survey.
Applying and Testing the Framework
Methods
To apply and test the framework for identifying values of interest, I developed and deployed a set
of value statements, called contextualized value portraits (described in more detail in the Measures section
below), using a web-based questionnaire hosted on SurveyGizmo (www.surveygizmo.com) from
September 24 to October 12, 2011.
Recruitment
I used an integrated sampling strategy, combining purposive and viral sampling approaches
(Plowright, 2011) to recruit participants for the study. I use the term viral as opposed to snowball, chain, or
reputational sampling to describe more accurately the ways in which the survey could spread through
online informal communication on Twitter. For example, in each recruitment tweet, I included a request for
individuals to re-tweet the message to their own networks and used a variety of hashtags (e.g. #homeless,
#socialissues, #tcot, #libertarian). I used this approach to gather individuals outside of my personal network
and to target Twitter users who might have a stake in the issue of homelessness. I sent a total of 150 direct
messages and 145 at-mentions during the study period. I offered participants one of twenty-five, five-dollar
Amazon.com gift cards in a randomized drawing to complete the survey.
Due to the sampling approaches, an exact response rate was difficult to calculate. I used bitly
(www.bitly.com), a URL shortener and redirection service that provides tracking to serve as a proxy for
response rate. Bitly counts the number of clicks a link receives and ignores clicks from spambots and
crawlers (which services like SurveyGizmo do not account for). It does not account for multiple clicks by the
same user, however. During the study period, the survey link received 580 clicks. After clicking on the link,
a summary page appeared with information including purpose of the study for research, anticipated time
required to take the survey, details about the incentive, and other logistical information. A consent form
appeared on the next screen for participants who chose to proceed from that point. Individuals indicated
their consent to participate in the study by clicking “I agree” at the bottom of the page and proceeding to the
beginning of the survey. From the consent form, 199 participants completed all or part of the survey (34%
proxy response rate).
Sample
This paper considers a subsample of respondents who indicated that they used Twitter and then
completed the contextualized value portraits and subsequent demographic and stakeholder characteristics
questions (n=132). The survey also asked additional questions related to values (the Schwartz Portrait
Value Questionnaire, 2007), demographics (military experience), social media use, and Twitter access and
behaviors, which were not included in the current study.
Table 1 presents a summary of the demographics for this sample. Demographic information was
not available for non-responders; therefore, it is not clear whether a self-selection bias exists regarding
survey participation. When I compare the demographics of this study to information about Twitter users
more generally (Smith, 2011), this sample appears to be representative with regard to age and education
level, but is skewed in terms of gender (more females) and ethnicity (fewer Hispanics and African
Americans).
J. A. Koepfler
7
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
Table 1. Summary of demographics for sample (n=132)
Demographic
% (n)
Age
M=33.8 years, SD=9, Min=19 to Max=64
Gender
Female
68% (90)
Male
32% (42)
Ethnicity
Caucasian
78% (103)
Hispanic
8% (10)
Asian
5% (6)
African American
4% (5)
Native American
3% (4)
Prefer not to answer
4% (5)
Missing data
4% (5)
Education level
Graduate degree or higher
55% (72)
College (4-year degree)
30% (39)
College (2-year degree) or some college
9% (12)
High school or some high school
2% (3)
Note. Some columns may total greater than 100% due to multiple responses and/or rounding error.
Measures
Contextualized Value Portraits
Cheng and Fleischmann (2010) suggested that the MIHV was suitable for use in both content
analysis and survey methods, but the framework has only been tested using content analysis to date (e.g.
Cheng, et al., 2011; Koepfler & Fleischmann, 2011, 2012). The contextualized value portraits developed to
test the framework in this paper are a first step towards validating the inventory for use in survey methods.
I created the contextualized value portraits, modeling Schwartz’s Portrait Values Questionnaire
(PVQ; Schwartz, 2007). The PVQ includes short verbal portraits of different people. Each portrait describes
a person’s goals, aspirations, or wishes, which point implicitly to the importance of a single value type. I
based the language of aspirations and behaviors in my portraits on examples found in the thematic and
content analyses in Study 2 and Study 3. I developed portraits that would reflect the overlapping nature of
the social and communication contexts in the framework by adding language about Twitter to contextualize
them.
Before responding to the portraits, I asked survey participants to indicate their gender identity so
that the portrait items they saw would be worded with gender-specific pronouns in line with Schwartz’s
approach. For each portrait, a respondent determined how much s/he was or was not similar to the person
described on a scale from 1-6, where 1 = not like me at all and 6 = very much like me. The respondents
compared the portrait to themselves rather than themselves to the portrait in order to encourage a focus on
the value-relevant aspects of the task. This approach prevents participants from thinking about the larger
number of self-characteristics s/he might have, inadvertently overlooking the similarity of values (Schwartz,
2007). Schwartz’s statements use three different sentence structures. For the portraits I developed, I
adopted only one sentence structure for consistency across statements, because there has been no testing
J. A. Koepfler
8
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
to determine if the difference in structural formulations affects responses. Table 2 lists the portraits for each
value, which were randomly presented to participants on one page of the survey.
Table 2. Contextualized values portraits
Portrait
Values of the social context
It is important to him to have money and nice things. He promotes his work through Twitter to make
money or gain resources. [wealth]
It is important to him that everyone be treated equally. He wants justice for everybody, even for people
he doesn't know on Twitter. [equality]
It is important to him to follow people on Twitter who are different from him. Even when he disagrees with
them, he still wants to see different points of view from their tweets. [broadmindedness]
It is important to him to help people who seek information and resources on Twitter. He wants to help
others find what they need. [helpfulness]
It is important to him to be open and honest about his identity on Twitter. He understands who he is and
how he is perceived by others. [identity]
It is important to him to express his religious or spiritual beliefs on Twitter. He is comfortable using
religious language in his tweets. [spirituality]
Values of the communication context
It is important to him to stay in touch with his friends and family online. He tries to make and maintain
new friendships through Twitter. [connectedness]
It is important to him to contribute his ideas and ensure that his voice is heard. He tweets his own
thoughts and re-tweets the thoughts of people he agrees with. [participation]
It is important to him to live in a comfortable environment. He acknowledges both positive and negative
experiences in his environment through Twitter. [comfort]
Note. Participants were asked to indicate their gender, which changed the pronouns used in the portraits.
Scale: 1-6, where each point included a text anchor ranging from 1 = not like me at all and 6 = very much
like me.
Stakeholder groups
After completing the values portraits, I asked participants to respond to a series of questions about
their stakeholder associations to homelessness, approximating the types of key stakeholders that emerged
in Study 1. Participants indicated whether they had worked for, volunteered for, and/or donated money or
goods to an organization associated with issues of homelessness and poverty within the last twelve
months. They then indicated whether or not they had experienced homelessness in their lifetime and were
asked follow-up questions about the recentness and frequency of that experience if they had.
The questions related to homelessness in survey used the temporal framing of one’s lifetime with
the logic that homelessness is the type of traumatic experience that might have a greater impact on one’s
values over time as suggested by the work of Feather (1985) and Inglehart (1997) and would likely
increase their stake in the issue of homelessness. The questions regarding other stakeholder associations
used the temporal framing of the “last twelve months”, because this frame is more appropriate for shortterm behaviors like donating, and the recent nature of such activities would likely increase one’s stake in
the issue of homelessness at that time. I envisioned a multi-stakeholder design team that included
individuals who were both homeless and formerly homeless along with individuals who were currently or
recently engaged in the other stakeholder activities described above, similar to those who might label
themselves as Advocates and Do-gooders in Study 1.
J. A. Koepfler
9
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
Analysis
I exported the data from the web survey into SPSS 17.0 for data management and analysis. To
determine relationships between the two sets of values and the stakeholder characteristics, I conducted
point-biserial correlations. A point-biserial correlation is a nonparametric statistic that identifies relationships
between a discrete-dichotomous variable (i.e. yes or no responses to the stakeholder association
questions) and a rank-order variable (i.e. the interval scale used in the portraits) (Corder & Foreman, 2009).
Due to the number of statistical tests required to test these hypotheses which may increase Type I errors
across the study, I chose to use a more conservative α=.01. In order to maintain comparisons between
prior studies and this one, I also report findings at α=.05, but note that these findings are less robust and
refer to them as potential trends.
Results
The framework for identifying values of interest considers relationships between social and
communication context values and key stakeholders in a domain of interest. Table 3 presents the
distribution of each stakeholder association and a detailed description of the survey respondents who
indicated that they had ever experienced homelessness. It is interesting to note that more than half of the
participants who had experienced homelessness experienced it more than once, and had experienced it
since the 2008 economic crisis.
I also note that these groups are not mutually exclusive, which is why I refer to them as stakeholder
associations. I am emphasizing that these are characteristics of one’s stake in the issue of homelessness
and account for the possibility that individuals may have one or many associations to the issue. For
example, of the individuals who reported working for an organization related to homelessness or poverty in
the last year, six of them had experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. Thirteen of the people
who had volunteered for such an organization in the last year had experienced homelessness. The same
was true for people who indicated that they had donated goods (19 people indicated also experiencing
homelessness) and people who indicated that they had donated money (14 people had experienced
homelessness). Survey participants had anywhere from zero to five associations with the issue of
homelessness with the average being close to two (M=1.87, SD=1.26).
J. A. Koepfler
10
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
Table 3. Summary statistics of stakeholder associations (n=132)
Demographic
% (n)
Stakeholder associations
Donated goods to a social service organization
80% (106)
Donated money to a social service organization
41% (54)
Volunteered for a social service organization
30% (39)
Experienced homelessness
16% (21)
Worked for a social service organization
11% (15)
No stakeholder relationship to homelessness
11% (15)
Missing data
5% (6)
Experienced homelessness more than once
Yes
57% (12)
No
29% (6)
Prefer not to answer
10% (2)
Missing data
5% (1)
Most recent experience with homelessness
Currently homeless
10% (2)
Since the 2008 economic crisis (2008-2011)
43% (9)
Prior to the 2008 economic crisis (1995-2007)
20% (4)
Before 1995
10% (2)
Prefer not to answer
10% (2)
Missing data
10% (2)
Note. Columns may total greater than 100% due to multiple responses and/or rounding error.
Although the overlap between the stakeholder associations limited the types of statistical tests that
could be conducted, it provided a rich picture of stakeholder relationships to homelessness than would
have been possible if I had asked participants to try to identify with one stakeholder group over another.
Correlation analyses, however, were appropriate for this data, and were useful for identifying potential
values of interest, which the framework suggests should emerge from the consideration of the various
stakeholders and the values of the social and communication contexts. Specifically, I tested the following
assumptions of the framework:
1. There will be values that show positive relationships to some stakeholder associations,
indicating salient values of interest
2. There will be values that show positive relationships across stakeholder associations,
indicating shared values
3. There will be values that show positive relationships to some stakeholder associations but
not others, indicating conflicting values
To test these three assumptions, I conducted one-tailed point-biserial correlations for each stakeholder
association and each of the values in the social context of homelessness and in the communication context
of Twitter. Table 4 summarizes the results of the correlation analyses. Overall, the strength of the
correlations were small, but they were in the anticipated direction (i.e. positive) and point to several values
of interest.
J. A. Koepfler
11
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
First, five of the six values associated with homelessness (wealth, identity, spirituality,
broadmindedness, and equality) showed significant positive correlations (p<.01) with at least one of the
stakeholder associations. One of the three informal communication values (connectedness) showed
significant positive correlations (p<.01) with one of the stakeholder association categories. These values
are all salient to the sample of individuals that participated in the survey (assumption 1).
Broadmindedness had statistically significant positive correlations with individuals who indicated
that they had volunteered or worked for an organization associated with homelessness or poverty in the
last twelve months, and positive trends (p<.05) for the other three associations. The fact that at least some
positive relationship emerged among all five groups highlights broadmindedness as a potential shared
value among stakeholders associated with homelessness (assumption 2). Spirituality might also be a
potential shared value among three of the five stakeholder groups (donated money, volunteered, and
experienced homelessness).
Wealth and equality were positively associated with those who had experienced homelessness, but
no other groups, and identity and connectedness were associated with those who had donated money to
an organization related to homelessness in the last twelve months, but no other groups, pointing to
potential conflicting values (assumption 3).
Table 4. Relationships between values and stakeholder associations (n=1261)
Donated goods (n=106)
.23**
Volunteered for (n=39)
Worked for (n=15)
Participation
Connectedness
Comfort
Equality
.15*
Donated money (n=54)
Experienced homelessness
(n=21)
Broadmindedness
Spirituality
Identity
Helpfulness
Values associated with homelessness
Wealth
Stakeholder association
Values associated
with informal
communication
.31**
.19*
.19*
.21*
.19*
.28**
.28**
.21*
.15*
.21**
.18*
.21**
.19*
.28**
Notes. *p<.05, **p<.01. Potential shared values are green. Potential divergent or conflicting values are in
red. Degrees of freedom for all of the tests was 124. Six of the survey participants who completed the
portraits did not complete the stakeholder questions, resulting in n=126 for the analysis.
J. A. Koepfler
12
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
Discussion
Though value priorities are understood to be trans-situational (Schwartz, 2007), the salience of
certain values in groups will be mediated by social and technological contexts, which have implications for
design. When designing web-based communication tools for complex issues like homelessness, it is
necessary to explore how stakeholder associations to the research domain influence the salience of
particular values and to take into account these different contexts. Previous research in the social services
domain has used qualitative approaches tailored to the specific design group to accomplish these goals,
but these approaches may be difficult to scale up or to replicate in other environments. The contextualized
value portraits I developed for this study offer a starting point for engaging values in design of large-scale or
distributed informal communication systems. An example of such a system might be deploying a
Community Resource Messenger, like the one developed by Le Dantec and colleagues (2008, 2010,
2011), in shelters across the state of Georgia or along the entire southeast coastal region of the United
States. Another example could be developing a tool that aggregates real-time updates through tweets
regarding social services and other information and resources. As government funding becomes
increasingly scarce, such approaches may become more desirable for effectively allocating resources and
facilitating communication and information exchange among stakeholders in this domain. Ensuring that the
values of interest of the key stakeholders involved are addressed at the outset, will facilitate the success of
such systems and design teams.
The findings also provide preliminary empirical evidence for accepting the major components of the
proposed framework. Using the social context of homelessness, the communication context of Twitter, and
key stakeholder associations in the social services domain as an initial case study, I tested the major
assumptions of the framework and identified values of interest. Though the specific values of interest
identified by the analysis are limited to the study sample and are not generalizable to a broader population,
we can consider how they might occur in real-life design scenarios. For example, broadmindedness
emerged as a shared value among the stakeholders associated with homelessness. Knowing that this is a
potential shared value ahead of time enables designers to proactively use this value as a “lever” to “pry
open” discussions about values in the design process (Shilton, 2011). Team leaders can explicitly state that
this value is core to the group’s interactions and success and initiate it as a design requirement in the
system.
Additionally, knowing about conflicting values is also useful. Value conflicts are a natural part of the
design process yet they can have major impacts on the resulting design of systems (Fleischmann &
Wallace, 2010). Conflicts may arise around competing values or they may arise when different
stakeholders prioritize certain values that are less relevant to other stakeholders, such as wealth, equality,
identity, and connectedness identified by this study. Team leaders could guide the design team through
exercises that raise these issues at the start of a design project in order to get potential conflicts out in the
open and leverage those discussions for innovations in the design of the system. In this way, the
contextualized value portraits along with the framework for identifying values of interest become precursors
to using other tools, such as Envisioning Cards (http://www.envisioningcards.com/), which intend to raise
awareness of long-term and systemic ethical issues and values in design (Nathan et al., 2008). Identifying
values of interest allows designers to select appropriate envisioning cards for the design team and the
intended design product.
Finally, values of interest can also help team leaders bring together their design teams. Creating
diversity in design teams is often based on demographic characteristics, but determining values of interest
can help team leaders recruit individuals with a diversity of values, or, conversely, ensure that the design
partners they select all have at least one common value among them.
J. A. Koepfler
13
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
Limitations & Future Work
There are several limitations of this study that could be addressed through future research. First,
one significant limitation is that I used only single-item portraits to measure each value in order to keep the
length of the survey to a minimum. This decision sacrificed construct validity for increased response rate
and survey completion. Future work should consider developing multiple-item portraits for the values
associated with homelessness and informal communication. Further, I contextualized the portraits within
the informal communication context of Twitter based on patterns of communication and value expression
from Study 3 (Koepfler & Fleischmann, 2012). A portrait can only account for so much of that context. One
participant highlighted just one of the challenges related to this issue in the open comments section of the
survey:
I actively use Twitter from multiple accounts, for multiple purposes (I have an academic
account and a sports account…). My answers hold true for both, but you may want to
consider how to address users with multiple accounts.
In addition to multiple Twitter accounts, Twitter is a medium that allows users to move fluidly between
communication contexts. Further research is needed to examine the role that multiple user accounts,
multiple social media identities, and context-switching between communication tools has on the user
experience and how users navigate those spaces in light of their values. Finally, Twitter is just one of many
tools that support informal communication. Additional research in other informal communication contexts,
including Facebook, Tumblr, and personal blogs, should be used to further vet the framework proposed in
this paper.
Second, the stakeholder groups used for comparison were relatively small and skewed due to the
sampling procedures that were necessary for data collection. The distribution of individuals who did and did
not have certain stakeholder associations (“yes” responses versus “no” responses in each category) were
unequal. As dichotomous distributions become more unequal they constrain the potential strength of
statistical correlations that one can find with the dependent variable. Larger samples from individuals with
the characteristics of interest might support additional correlation analyses as well as other tests, such as
exploratory factor analysis, to determine which of the variables associated with homelessness along with
other demographic and psychographic variables account for the greatest amount of variance. Findings from
such studies would contribute to validating existing components of the framework and potentially adding
new elements for consideration.
Lastly, values are incredibly complex and difficult to study as is the issue of homelessness (Catton,
1954). I do not intend to make light of that fact in this paper. The survey method I used with the
contextualized value portraits shows the relationships between values and different stakeholder
associations to homelessness, which otherwise could not be identified through other methods like content
analysis. This finding highlights the importance of mixed-methods research for the study of values more
generally. Triangulating methods and combining them with qualitative studies could shed light on the many
factors that are co-occurring in these contexts.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, I proposed a framework for identifying values of interest for multi-stakeholder, valuecentered design projects. I applied the framework to a specific design scenario consisting of values related
to homelessness (wealth, helpfulness, identity, spirituality, broadmindedness, and equality), values related
to informal communication (comfort, connectedness, and participation), and the stakeholders that were
relevant to the combination of both of those contexts. I developed and deployed a set of contextualized
J. A. Koepfler
14
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
value portraits to test the assumptions of the framework. The findings provided preliminary empirical
support for the major components of the framework and offered several implications for using values in the
design of information and communication systems. The importance of designing such systems in this way
can perhaps best be summarized by revisiting the PEN project and Donald Paschal, who explains:
On PEN, I have been helped, rebuffed, scorned, criticized, considered, and in most cases,
respected – as a human. PEN is a great equalizer. There are no homeless or homed
unless we say we are. We are not one happy family; like most families, we squabble. On
any topic, no one can accuse PENners of agreeing fully. But we are communicating, and
that is a start. (Donald Paschal, homeless resident in Santa Monica, CA, 1996)
From Donald’s perspective being present at the stakeholder table and opening up the lines of
communication, regardless of whether or not values and opinions conflict, is what matters most.
[word count: 7,194]
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of my committee for their guidance and feedback throughout this
research process – Drs. Kenneth R. Fleischmann, Katie Shilton, and June Ahn. I would also like to thank
James R. Koepfler, Jeffrey DiScala, and Christopher Mascaro for reviewing early drafts of this work.
References
Becker, S., Crandall, M. D., Fisher, K. E., Kinney, B., Landry, C., & Rocha, A. (2010). Opportunity for all:
How the American public benefits from Internet access at U.S. libraries. Washington, D.C.: Institute
for Museum and Library Services.
Bennet, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 8(1), 12-29.
Bernthal, W. F. (1962). Value perspectives in management decisions. Journal of the Academy of
Management, 5(3), 190-196.
Bird, F. & Waters, J. A. (1987). The nature of managerial moral standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(1),
1-13.
Catton, W. R., Jr. (1954). Exploring techniques for measuring human values. American Sociological
Review, 19(1), 49-55.
Cheng, A. -S., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2010). Developing a meta-inventory of human values. Proceedings of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47(1), 1-10.
Cheng, A. -S., Fleischmann, K. R., Wang, P., Ishita, E., & Oard, D. (Under Review). When innovation
meets wealth: A content analysis of human values in the Net neutrality debate.
Cheng, A. -S., Fleischmann, K. R., Wang, P., Ishita, E., & Oard, D. (2010). Values of stakeholders in the
Net neutrality debate: Applying content analysis to telecommunications policy. Proceedings of the
43rd Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences, (Honolulu, HI, Jan. 5-8, 2010), 1-10.
Corder, G. W. & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Comparing variables of ordinal or dichotomous scales: Spearman
rank-order, point-biserial, and biserial correlations. In Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 122-154.
Crace, R. K. & Brown, C. (1995). Life values inventory. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.
Daniels, J. (Under Review). ‘It helps keep me sane’: Mobile phone use by homeless LGBTQ youth in New
York City.
J. A. Koepfler
15
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of Management Journal,
10, 53-68.
Eyrich-Garg, K. (2010). Mobile phone technology: A new paradigm for the prevention, treatment, and
research of the non-sheltered “street” homeless. Journal of Urban Health, 87(3), 365-380.
Feather, N. T. (1975). Values and income level. Australian Journal of Psychology, 27, 23-30.
Feather, N. T. (1985). Attitudes, values, and attributions: Explanations of unemployment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 876-889.
Feather, N. T. (1992). Expectancy-value theory and unemployment effects. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65, 315-330.
Flanagan, M., & Nissenbaum, H. (2007). A game design methodology to incorporate activist themes.
Proceedings of CHI 2007 conference. San Jose, CA. 28 April-3 May, 2007.
Fleischmann, K. R. (2006). Boundary objects with agency: A method for studying the design-use interface.
The Information Society, 22(2), 77-87.
Fleischmann, K. R. (2007). Digital libraries with embedded values: Combining insights from LIS and
Science and Technology Studies. Library Quarterly, 77(4), 409-427.
Fleischmann, K. R., Oard, D. W., Cheng, A. -S., Wang, P., & Ishita, E. (2009). Automatic classification of
human values: Applying computational thinking to information ethics. Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 46(1), 1-10.
Fleischmann, K. R., & Wallace, W. A. (2010). Value conflicts in computational modeling. IEEE Computer
Society (July), 57-63.
Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Friedman, B., & Freier, N. (2004). Value sensitive design. In K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, and E. F. McKechnie
(Eds.). Theories of information behavior: A researcher's guide. Medford, NJ: Information Today,
368-372.
Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. H., Jr. (1992). Human agency and responsible computing: Implications for
computer system design. Journal of Systems Software, 17, 7–14.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P.
Zhang and D. Galletta (eds.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems:
Foundations. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 348-372.
Friedman, B. & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information
Systems, 14(3), 330-347.
Granovetter, M.D. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360-1380.
Hendry, D.G., Woelfer, J.P., Harper, R., Bauer, T., Fitzer, B., and Champagne, M. (2011). How to integrate
digital media into a drop-in for homeless young people for deepening relationships between youth
and adults. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(5), 774-782.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43
societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T. & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and
communities. Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A value framework for measuring the impact of workplace
spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 129-142.
Kahle, L. R., Poulos, B., & Sukhdial, A. (1988). Changes in social values in the United States during the
past decade. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 35-41.
J. A. Koepfler
16
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
Koepfler, J. A., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2011). Classifying values in informal communication: Adapting the
meta-inventory of human values for tweets. Proceedings of the 74th Annual Meeting of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology (New Orleans, LA Oct. 7-12, 2011), 1-4.
Koepfler, J. A., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2012). Studying the values of hard-to-reach populations: Content
analysis of Tweets by the 21st century homeless. Proceedings of the 2012 iConference, (Toronto,
ON, Feb. 7-12, 2012), 1-8.
Koepfler, J. A., & Hansen, D. L. (2012). We Are Visible: Technology-mediated social participation in a
Twitter network for the homeless. Proceedings of the 2012 iConference (Toronto, ON, Feb. 7-12,
2012), 1-2.
Kraut, R., Fish, R., Root, R. & Chalfonte, B. (1993). Informal communication in organizations: Form,
function, and technology. Proceedings of the annual conference on computer supported
cooperative work.
Le Dantec, C. A. (2008). Life at the margins: Assessing the role of technology for the urban homeless.
Interactions, October/November, 25-27.
Le Dantec, C. A., Christensen, J. E., Bailey, M., Farrell, R. G., Ellis, J. B., Danis, C. M., Kellogg, W. A., &
Edwards, W. K. (2010). A tale of two publics: Democractizing design at the margins. Proceedings
of the conference on Designing interactive systems. New York: ACM, 11–20.
Le Dantec, C. A., & Edwards, W. K. (2008). Designs on dignity: perceptions of technology among the
homeless. Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
computing systems. New York: ACM, 627-636.
Le Dantec, C. A. & Edwards, W. K. (2010). Across boundaries of influence and accountability: The multiple
scales of public sector information systems. Proceedings of the annual conference on Human
factors in computer (CHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010, 113–122.
Le Dantec, C. A., Farrell, R. G., Christensen, J. E., Bailey, M., Ellis, J. B., W. A. Kellogg, W. A., & Edwards,
W. K. (2010). Publics in practice: Ubiquitous computing at a shelter for homeless mothers.
Proceeding of the twenty-ninth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
systems. New York: ACM, 1687–1696.
Marwick, A. & boyd, d. (2011). I Tweet honestly, I Tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and
the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 96-113.
McDonald, P., & Gandz, J. (1991). Identification of values relevant to business research. Human Resource
Management, 30(2), 217-236.
Nardi, B.A. 2005. Beyond bandwidth: Dimensions of connection in interpersonal Communication. Journal of
Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14(2), 91-130.
Nathan, L. P., Friedman, B., Klasnja, P., Kane, S. K., & Miller, J. K. (2008). Envisioning systemic effects on
persons and society throughout interactive system design. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM
Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York, NY: ACM Press, 1-10.
National Coalition for the Homeless. (2006). McKinney-Vento Act. Available at:
www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/McKinney.pdf
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2007). Homelessness counts. Available at:
http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1440.
Plowright, D. (2011). Using Mixed Methods: Frameworks for an Integrated Methodology. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of
alternative work value measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 666-673.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
J. A. Koepfler
17
Shared Values and Value Conflicts: A Framework for Identifying Values of Interest for Multiple
Stakeholders in the Design of New Technologies
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal
of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.
Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Value orientations: measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations.
In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, C. Fitzgerald, & G. Eva (Eds.), Measuring attitudes cross-nationally:
Lessons from the European Social Survey, London: Sage Publications Ltd., 169-203
Scott, W. A. (1965). Values and organizations: A study of fraternities and sororities. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Sermons, M. W. & Witte, P. (2011). State of homelessness in America: A research report on
homelessness. Washington, D.C.: National Alliance to End Homelessness.
Shilton, K. (2010). Technology development with an agenda: Interventions to emphasize values in design.
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1-10.
Shilton, K. (2011). Building values into the design of pervasive mobile technologies. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1866783.
Smith, A. (2011). 13% of online adults use Twitter: Half of Twitter users access the service “on the go” via
mobile phone. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available at:
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/Twitter%20Update%202011.pdf
Van Tassel, J. (1996). Yakety-yak, do talk back!: PEN, the nation's first publicly funded electronic network,
makes a difference in Santa Monica. In Rob Kling (Ed.) Computerization and controversy, 2nd Ed.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc., 547-551.
Woelfer, J.P., and Hendry, D.G. (2010). Homeless young people's experiences with information systems:
Life and work in a community technology center. Proceeding of the twenty-eighth annual SIGCHI
conference on Human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM Press, 1291-1300.
Woelfer, J.P., & Hendry, D.G. (2011). Homeless young people and living with personal digital artifacts.
Proceeding of the twenty-ninth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
systems. New York: ACM Press, 1697-1706.
Woelfer, J.P., Iverson, A., Hendry, D.G., Friedman, B., & Gill, B. (2011). Improving the safety of homeless
young people with mobile phones: Values, form and function. Proceeding of the twenty-ninth
annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM Press,
1707-1716.
Zhao, D., & Rosson, M. B. (2009). How and why people Twitter: The role that microblogging plays in
informal communication at work. Proceedings of GROUP ’09 (May 10-13, 2009).
J. A. Koepfler
18