Abstract
In this chapter, I argue for a socio-technical approach to technology design for the common good that addresses its ethical and political aspects. The background is that the life of marginalized people in contemporary society is challenging and uncertain. The marginalized can face health and cognitive issues as well as a lack of stability in social structures such as family, work and social inclusion. In this context, certain democratic values embedded in technology design can conceal political asymmetries and fail to deliver ethical value exchange, where value extraction is not dominated by one party but equally shared across all stakeholders. I discuss two socio-technical perspectives called human-work interaction design (HWID) and Technological Frames (TF) to expose and tackle the challenges of designing technology for the common good. I introduce and evaluate an ongoing case of a digital service delivered through an app to support a fishing community in Alibaug, India. The evaluation of the socio-technical infrastructure surrounding this app is done in two parts: firstly, I use HWID to highlight inwardly and outwardly socio-technical, ethical and power relations between human work and interaction design; secondly, an argument for the use of the concept of TF to understand the constructionist and semiotic power dynamics of different groups in participatory technology design is presented. It is shown how dominant groups’ frames can construct meanings of design decisions in terms of whether they are appropriate or not. The political leverage of the scripts embedded in artefacts used in the process of design is also explained from a semiotic perspective. I conclude by highlighting the value of an ethical and political socio-technical framework for technology design for the common good with people at the margins.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this paper, we use the term socio-technical in a broad sense to cover various traditions thinking social and technical changes together, including the more recent term sociomaterial.
References
Abbott, J. K., & Haynie, A. C. (2012). What are we protecting? Fisher behavior and the unintended consequences of spatial closures as a fishery management tool. Ecological Applications, 22(3), 762–777.
Abdelnour Nocera, J. et al. (2021). Geopolitical issues in human computer interaction. In IFIP conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 536–541). Springer.
Abdelnour Nocera, J. et al. (2017). Socio-technical HCI for ethical value exchange: A case of service design and innovation “at the Margins” in resource constrained environments. In The 16th IFIP TC13 international conference on human–computer interaction (pp. 254–262). Springer.
Abdelnour Nocera, J. et al. (2019). Socio-technical HCI for ethical value exchange: Lessons from India. In International conference on social implications of computers in developing countries (pp. 229–240). Springer.
Abdelnour Nocera, J., Dunckley, L., & Sharp, H. (2007). An approach to the evaluation of usefulness as a social construct using technological frames. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 22(1–2), 153–172.
Akrich, M. (1995). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 167–184). Pinter Publishers.
Annett, J., & Duncan, K. D. (1967). Task analysis and training design. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 41, 211–221.
Archibugi, D., Koenig-, M., & Marchetti, R. (2011). Introduction: Mapping global democracy. In D. Archibugi, M. Koenig-, & R. Marchetti (Eds.), Global democracy: Normative and empirical Perspectives (pp. 1–21). Cambridge University Press.
Azad, B., & Faraj, S. (2013). Using signature matrix to analyze conflicting frames during the IS implementation process. Methodologies in AIS Research, 14(2), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.06.003
Bannon, L. (1991). From human factors to human actors. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 25–44). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bannon, L. & Bodker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts. In Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 227–253). Cambridge University Press.
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs : Toward a theory of sociotechnical change (p. 380). MIT Press.
Bjørn, N., & Clemmensen, T. (2017). The shaping of the Scandinavian socio-technical IS research tradition. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 29(1), 79–118.
Bødker, S. et al. (2000). Co-operative design—Perspectives on 20 years with “the Scandinavian IT Design Model”. In Proceedings of NordiCHI (Vol. 2000, pp. 22–24).
Bratteteig, T. & Wagner, I. (2014). Disentangling participation: Power and decision-making in participatory design. Springer.
Brynjarsdóttir, H. & Sengers, P. (2009). Ubicomp from the edge of the North Atlantic: Lessons from fishing villages in Iceland and Newfoundland. In Ubicomp 09 workshop. Citeseer.
Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (2009). Studies of work and the workplace in HCI: Concepts and techniques. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 2(1), 1–96.
Cabrero, A.-N. J., Daniel, G., Winschiers-Theophilus, H. (2016). Re-conceptualising personas across cultures: Stereotypes, archetypes and collective personas in pastoral Namibia. In 10th culture, technology, communication international conference (CaTaC’16). United Kingdom.
Celestino, J. E. M., et al. (2012). Ergonomics and environmental sustainability: A case study of raft fisherman activity at Ponta Negra Beach. Natal-RN. Work, 41(Suppl. 1), 648–655.
Chavan, A. L. et al. (2009). How mobile money can drive financial inclusion for women at the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) in Indian urban centers. In International conference on internationalization, design and global development (pp. 475–484). Springer.
Cherns, A. B. (1976). The principles of socio-technical design. Human Relations, 29, 783–792.
Clemmensen, T. (2011). A human work interaction design (HWID) case study in e-government and public information systems. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 2011(3), 105–113.
Clemmensen, T., Orngreen, R., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2005). Describing users in contexts: Perspectives on human-work interaction design. In Workshop proceedings of interact. Citeseer.
Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2007). About face 3: The essentials of interaction design. John Wiley & Sons.
Dearden, A. & Rizvi, H. (2008). Participatory IT design and participatory development: A comparative review. In Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008 (pp. 81–91). Indiana University (PDC ’08). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1795234.1795246.
Dillon, A. (2000). Group dynamics meet cognition: Applying socio-technical concepts in the design of information systems. In The new sociotech: Graffiti on the long wall (pp. 119–125). Springer Verlag.
Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 853–868.
Fulton, E. A., et al. (2011). Human behaviour: The key source of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries, 12(1), 2–17.
Gardien, P. et al. (2014). Changing your hammer: The implications of paradigmatic innovation for design practice. International Journal of Design, 8(2).
Hall, S. (1999). Encoding, decoding. In The cultural studies reader (pp. 507–517). Routledge.
Hertzum, M., et al. (2018). A mobile app for supporting sustainable fishing practices in Alibaug. Interactions, 25(3), 40–45.
Hinman, R., & Matovu, J. (2010). Opportunities and challenges for mobile-based financial services in rural Uganda. In CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3925–3930). ACM.
Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199–1216.
Khoo, M. (2001). Community design of DLESE’s collections review policy: A technological frames analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries (pp. 157–164). ACM Press.
Lin, A., & Silva, L. (2005). The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 49–59.
Mackay, H., et al. (2000). Reconfiguring the user: Using rapid application development. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 737–757.
Mumford, E. (1996). Systems design: Ethical tools for ethical change. Macmillan.
Mumford, E. & Weir, M. (1979). Computer systems in work design: The ETHICS method. John Wiley [Preprint].
Nelimarkka, M. (2019). A review of research on participation in democratic decision-making presented at SIGCHI conferences. Toward an improved trading zone between political science and HCI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW) (pp. 1–29).
Oh, Y., Do, E.Y.-L., & Gross, M. D. (2004). Intelligent critiquing of design sketches. In D. J. L. Randall, T. Stahovich, R. Miller, & E. Saund (Eds.), Making pen-based interaction intelligent and natural (pp. 127–133). AAAI Press.
Orlikowski, W., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in Organisations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174–207.
Pellegrino, G. (2005). Thickening the frame: Cross-theoretical accounts of contexts inside and around technology. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 25(1), 63–72.
Puri, S. K. et al. (2004). Contextuality of participation in IS design: A developing country perspective. In Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design. ACM Press (pp. 42–52). https://doi.org/10.1145/1011870.1011876.
Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., & Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. Wiley.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction (3rd ed.).Wiley.
Saldanha, M. C. W., et al. (2012). The construction of ergonomic demands: Application on artisan fishing using Jangada fishing rafts in the beach of Ponta Negra. Work, 41(Suppl. 1), 628–635.
Salmon, P. et al. (2010). Hierarchical task analysis vs. cognitive work analysis: comparison of theory, methodology and contribution to system design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(6), 504–531.
Sarkkinen, J. (2004). Examining a planning discourse: How a manager represents issues within a planning frame and how the other could do the same. ACM.
Singh, D. et al. (2016). Visual design for blue ocean services: mKRISHI® fisheries. In Proceedings of the 8th Indian Conference on Human Computer Interaction (pp. 96–101). ACM.
Sorenson, K. H., Aune, M., & Hatling, M. (2000). Against linearity: On the cultural appropriation of science and technology (p. 165). The Public, Science and Technology.
Subrahmanyan, S., & Tomas Gomez-Arias, J. (2008). Integrated approach to understanding consumer behavior at bottom of pyramid. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(7), 402–412.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press.
Torkilsheyggi, A. M., & Hertzum, M. (2017). Incomplete by design: A study of a design-in-use approach to systems implementation. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 29(2), 35–60.
Valtolina, S. et al. (2017). Socio-technical design of an app for migrants rescue operations. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 140–147). Springer.
Van der Velden, M., & Mörtberg, C. (2012). Between need and desire: Exploring strategies for gendering design. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 37(6), 663–683.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition. Ablex Publishing.
Winschiers-Theophilus, H. et al. (2010). Being participated: A community approach. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC ’10) (pp. 1–10). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900441.1900443.
Wolf, C. T. (2017). Narrative assembly: Technological framing, storytelling, and the situating of “data analytics” in organizational life. PhD Thesis. UC Irvine.
Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 58–100). Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abdelnour-Nocera, J. (2022). The Ethics and Politics of Design for the Common Good: A Lesson from Alibaug. In: Gómez Gutiérrez, J.J., Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Anchústegui Igartua, E. (eds) Democratic Institutions and Practices. Contributions to Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10808-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10808-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10807-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10808-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)