IP8: Attention

Introduction

I initially shied away from this IP, as its focus is on data, graphs, and analysis, which is not my area of expertise. Yet as I read more about Citton’s attentional ecosophy and thought about deep diving into my own attention, my curiosity got the best of me. As I immersed myself into Citton’s (2017) writing, I braced for a dense economic-centric read, and initiated a kind of didactic notetaking practice, which quickly gave way to my standard reading practice of highlighting and marginalia. This text is not tedious economics (in fact, Citton later positions his ideas away from an economics-based perspective, and toward an ecosophical view (pp. 19-23)) – it is surprisingly and thankfully philosophically poetic, akin to French theorists such as Barthes, Baudrillard, Perec and Deleuze and Guatarri (amongst many others).

Citton describes the attention economy as being “another economy” (p. 4); unlike an economy based on the “scarcity of factors of production” (p. 2), the attention economy focuses on the “scarcity of the capacity for the reception of cultural goods” (p. 2). To simplify: an economy fueled by an excess of cultural goods, and a lack of individuals’ attention to consume those goods. Citton hypothesizes that the growth of this other economy will lead to a shift where we (our attentions) will be valued as a sought after good, “in a few years or decades, we will be able to request payment for giving our attention to a cultural good instead of having to pay for the right to access it” (p. 8). There is something expectantly glib about this idea, as though, of course this is the kind of dystopic reality we are on the periphery of/are already in – maybe we can benefit from it. But we are reminded that our attention is not something to commodify, it is much more than a commodity, it is essentially us, who we are, individually and societally.

…attention does not only allow us to secure our ‘subsistence’ by avoiding death, and our ‘existence’ by bringing about the emergence of a unique and unprecedented life form through us; but, above all, it enables us to acquire a greater ‘consistence’ within the relationships that are woven in us. Far from helping us only to continue in being, it enables us to become ourselves (p. 172).

 

Where My Attention Lies

I documented my attentions for a 12-hour period. There are different types of days in my life: a day at the office, a day working from home, a day of errands about the city, a day of adventure, a social day, a lazy day. This day was a schoolwork day, a weekend day, normally reserved for rest and relaxation, but a day I begrudgingly set aside to complete the academic tasks I signed up for. From an emotional perspective, I would describe schoolwork days as a battle with procrastination and guilt, but the data revealed more. To capture a high-level visual on how I spent the day, I went through each attention entry and coded it to pair with a higher-level categorization: Physical, Food, Social, Internet, School, Self-Care, Housekeeping, then translated this data into the pie chart displayed below.

I was surprised and pleased to see that school-related work accounted for almost half of the period, totalling just over 5 hours of work. Additionally, I was dismayed that I spent over 2 hours on the internet – and this means, just on the internet, Googling or streaming content. The “internet” category does not account for all digital activity, nor does it account for school-related internet engagement (which would exist in the ‘school’ category).

 

Multitasking

The blue highlighted lines represent internet activity. See Google Sheets document.

Over the 12-hour period, I shifted from another activity toward the internet 15 times – I used my search history to gather accurate data on time and focus of activity. Upon reflection my attention seems frenetic and impulsive, yet in the moment, my outward activity is simply reflective of my own thoughts in flux and my actions feel fluid. De Castell and Jenson (2004) validate this kind of multitasking that is reflective of our technologically dominant culture,

…in fact highly efficient and effective deployments of partial, subsidiary, and intermittent attention strategies routinely used by students, who have learned to do homework while watching television and listening to music on headsets — with that homework being done on a computer whose multiple screens are simultaneously at work and at play, between Internet research, chat programs, word processing, e-mail, and, of course, online games, users switching rapidly among the screens to minimize any loss of time associated with waiting for processing, loading, connecting, and the like (p. 388).

It is true that while waiting I turned my attention to the internet, but this was also my reflexive response to many passing thoughts, some of which, I did not truly care to know more about and quickly abandoned my query. “Google lives off our active and reactive attention, which continually nourish and refine the effectiveness of the formal apparatus put at our disposal. On the other hand, Google tends increasingly to sell our attention, our needs to know and our search choices, to advertisers that the firm allows to short-circuit the effects of our common intelligence…” (2017, p. 9) – Citton’s words remind me that I need to bring awareness to my attention, particularly if my quotidian actions benefit massive corporations by selling a little bit of me for an answer I barely cared to know.

 

Fluctuation Over Time

I attempted to code the data I collected to reflect the following levels: my emotional state, multitasking, and procrastination. I used a scale ranging from 0-3. For my emotional state, 0 represented negative emotions and 3 represented the height of positive emotions (ranging from resentful to enthusiastic). For multitasking, 0 represented not multitasking at all, where 3 represented extensive multitasking. For procrastination I was thinking about how my attention best reflected my goal of completing schoolwork for the day, 0 representing not procrastinating at all, and 3 representing extreme procrastination.

Emotional State Over Time

Initially, this chart appears chaotic, as though a regular day is an emotional rollercoaster, but keep in mind, that the emotional range is not extreme, and if the dimensions of the graph are transformed to visually reflect the emotional range, it appears more accurate. Additionally, it was comforting to know, that even during a stressful period (nearing the end of a school semester), I experience regular stretches of general happiness.


Click on images to be brought to the Google Sheets document where the charts can be viewed large-scale.

Multitasking Over Time

Most of the time I was engaged in some level of multitasking. Particularly on this day, as I started the period with learning how to use a new slow cooker and making a stew, so tending to the stew and learning this new device served as a backdrop to all the other activities. There were also times throughout the day where I hyper multitasked (e.g., 6:15pm: Had a bath and read school texts in there (best place to do so) while doing a face mask. Used sample of ‘Ginseng Renewal Cream’ from Sephora.) Why not combine self-care, school, and relaxation all in one –and while the stew is cooking!

Procrastination Over Time

Initially this section was called “distractions” but I changed it to procrastination, as I felt that most of my distractions were intentional acts of avoidance, methods to avoid focusing on my schoolwork, the necessary goal of the day. Those periods where procrastination is at 0 represent when I was able to focus on schoolwork or complete a necessary task for basic functioning.

All Levels Over Time

I worked out all this data specifically so I could compare it to look for correlations, or interesting patterns. Here are some of my initial observations:

  • Multiple times there is a peak in red (emotional state) followed shortly after by a peak in green (procrastination) upon inspecting the data, it appears in these cases I did schoolwork, and then, almost as a reward, right after I did something unimportant, like Google a passing thought.
  • There is an overall similar flow with red (emotional state) and green (procrastination). I believe this is because both levels over time are directly emotionally based.
  • Blue (multitasking) is more consistent than the other two that are directly reflective of my emotions. But the act of multitasking is more stable, displaying longer timeframes of similar states – during these times, I may be jumping around to different activities, but they are in the same realm (e.g., all on the internet, or cooking different parts of a meal).
  • During periods of steady blue (multitasking) there seems to be more activity with red (emotional state) and green (procrastination), yet when blue is more active, red, and green seem less so – as though steady activity, allows my mind to wander, but as my multitasking abilities shift, my emotions are less active as I focus on the change. 

Conclusion

The act of reading Citton’s text, then closely analyzing my own attention, has guided me to look carefully at what exactly my attentions are, how they flow, how they are affected and how they affect, and their deeper connections. These close observations have taught me more about myself and how I interact with my reality. Part of Citton’s turn to an attention ecosophy as opposed to the notion of an attention economy points to attention’s nature of being relational/interactive/connected/entangled. “It represents the essential mediator charged with assuring my relationship with the environment that nourishes my survival…” (p.22). Learning about an ecosophy of attention through a close observation of my own attentions enables another way for me to perceive my place in this world, an awareness that I hope provokes me to remain attentive. As a reminder, we can always refer to Citton’s tenth maxim of attentional ecosophy:

10. Learn to devote yourself, at different times, to hyper-focusing, open vigilance and free-floating attention. Even more than the ability to concentrate, good attentional health is characterized by an aptitude for modulating your level of attention to the situation at hand. It is just as essential to be able to immerse yourself in methods of sustained hyper-focusing, which make us impervious to any external stimulus, as it is to sweep broadly across the field of possibilities to note something entirely new, or to allow your free-floating attention to transgress the barriers of habit (p. 180).

Addendum

Check out the Google Sheets document for more detailed views of the charts and graphs shown as well as further visualizations of the data, including:

  • High-Level Activities lumped into even broader categories: School, Internet, Non-Internet Tasks (everything else)
  • Digital vs. Non-Digital Activities
  • Pie Chart of Emotional States
  • Bar graph of key words and their levels of usage

References

Citton, Y. (2017). The ecology of attention. John Wiley & Sons.

De Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2004). Paying attention to attention: New economies for learning. Educational Theory54(4), 381-397.

IP7: Digital Labour

Was this IP intended to have us experience intense digital labour? This particular IP surprisingly continuously served me many technical challenges. Below are some of them:

  • Realizing the animation app I wanted to use was expensive, and there was no free trial
  • Finding an animation app that was free to use – or – had a free trial with sufficient features (I signed up for 4 until I found one that worked – Moovly)
  • Figuring out how to use Descript to enhance my audio recordings (on another free trial)
  • Realizing that Moovly would limit my videos to 3 minutes – and subsequently figuring out that I could piece my videos together using iMovie
  • Also realizing I would have to splice my audio using Garage Band to make it fit

Regardless – an animated video was created! (Thanks to my spouse, Hiller Goodspeed, who let me integrate his life and illustrations with theories of digital labour). The video, and corresponding text are below:

The Digital Labour of an Instagram Influencer Made Freelance Illustrator

The Aspirational Labour Required to Attain Influencer Status

In the third chapter of her book, Duffy focuses on aspirational labour – a kind of digital labour social media influencers engage in when “they approach social media creation with strategy, purpose, and aspirations of career success” (2017, p. 48). Although Duffy’s writing specifically focuses on females, I recognized the representation of my own (male) partner’s lived experience as a social media influencer. He would cringe at such a label, but with a fluctuating Instagram followership of approximately 180,000, it is difficult to deny.

Duffy describes the “patterned narratives” of how influencers found themselves in the social media sphere, and outlines three major themes, “[1] creativity as accidental entrepreneurship, [2] managing uncertainty in the post-recession economy, and [3] breaking into the creative industries” (p. 52). Each of which were relevant at the time my partner, Hiller, initiated his online presence. Hiller is truly creative and a constant (perhaps even obsessive) producer of images and ideas. In the late aughts, many millennials, particularly students of art and design were regularly posting work online, just as Hiller was. Additionally, his ‘blogging’ (in the form of a very active Tumblr) began, when he was a recent design graduate, in a new city looking for work and new friends – his lack of each meant he had the time to continually generate free content. Although he may not have explicitly said so at the time, he also aimed to break into the local, and particularly insular Portland design scene.

Eventually, Hiller expanded his presence to Instagram, and over a 2–3-year period of sharing content online, his work became ubiquitous in certain realms of the internet, a direct result of his prolific and consistent content creation. Throughout this time, he began accepting illustration commissions from individuals and small to mid-sized organizations to big name companies. During this transitional period, it became evident to both of us that Hiller’s digital labour, represented what Crawford (2021) describes as the “…collapse between the distinction of work and leisure” (p. 58). Throughout this period, Hiller maintained separate day jobs and the shift from content creation stemming from personal fulfilment to content creation to maintain followers, or to stay relevant, or to keep receiving contract offers resulted in high stress and a high workload that did not equate to high profits.

Aspirations Become Reality – Is It Worth It?

To avoid a life where his income was directly tied to his leisure/labour efforts, rather than pushing the role of influencer, Hiller decided to let it simmer in the background and pursued a career in library studies. Yet he continues to maintain his social media presence and work on select contract jobs as a side gig. It’s this contract work that recalled Crawford’s explanation of machine and human collaboration during the industrial revolution, “the integration of workers’ bodies with machines was sufficiently thorough that early industrialists could view their employees as a raw material to be managed and controlled like any other resource” (p. 60).

From an uninformed lens, many viewers of Hiller’s work, including his clients, assume he works solely digital, when in fact, his work is a careful assemblage of analogue and digital processes. Analogue integration is what makes Hiller’s work authentically his – to further digitize his process would result in a loss of authenticity, and as the work is so intrinsically tied to his identity of self – working more digitally would alter the outcome, and more importantly, his identity.

The Embarrassment of Hidden Background Labour

The labour Hiller engages in, is not simply his artistic genius, but also marketing, communication, coordination and administrative work and a vast array of repetitive technical work that can take hours. This additional, hidden labour is the kind of work larger companies outsource or create departments to facilitate. This reminds me of Crawford’s description of Babbage’s “disassembly line,” an automated process so efficiently designed, that “the human techniques required at any point… could be performed by just about anyone” (p. 72). Yet in our even more dystopic present reality, all processes are expected to be performed, for minuscule wages, when the totality of work is factored in.

Crawford explains how many artificial intelligence systems – systems that seem fully digitized, are supplemented with “unseen…” human background labour, and without this collaboration, “…AI systems won’t function” (p. 63-64), misleading users to believe in seamless technologies that do not actually exist. Perhaps the internalization of this falsified idea of an advanced technological reality compels freelance workers, such as Hiller, to keep the full extent of their labour hidden, as it would be almost embarrassing to admit that so much of the necessary and hidden work is not automated, but in fact, painstakingly completed by them – and how are they to convince their clients of their value, when their value has already been deceptively determined in society?

References:

Crawford, K. (2021). Digital labor. The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. (pp. 53-88). Yale University Press.

Duffy, B. E. (2017). (Not) just for the fun of it: The labor of social media production. (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. (pp. 45-97). Yale University Press.

Goodspeed, H. (2017.a, July 06). [Good but not the best]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/BWOFBLHh5hL/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2017.b, November 01). [Too much can’t do]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/Ba9vrmuhLw5/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2017.c, December 09). [Another clueless millenium]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/BcfzsLNh_Al/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2018.a, March 27). [No one understands me like computer]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/Bg2gXselCh_/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2018.b, September 14). [OK]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/BntxXXYF4vb/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2018.c, September 29). [Your email…]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/BoVAVksFJrq/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2019.a, January 18). [I am learning so much today]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/Bsyh2flgwAq/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2019.b, February 22). [Don’t tell them they hurt your feelings]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/BuMsLlDHK9u/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2019.c, November 03). [Save your best ideas for yourself]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/B4b4OfZD0dh/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2019.d, December 26). [Be more efficient]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/B6jUjeOHIJ4/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2021.a, September 29). [Still me]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/CUbd55wFhEc/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2022.a, September 29). [Hiding under couch]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/CjHOvzsrBCB/?hl=en

Goodspeed, H. (2022.b, November 24). [Just another day]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/ClXCFWVytli/?hl=en

Tipping Point: A Critical Case Study

Written by Erin Marranca & Noelle Peach

Part 1: Making a case

Workplace Internal Knowledge Base as an Educational Tool

Internal workplace education experiences exist in a variety of formats: onboarding practices, one-on-one or group training sessions, recurrent and just-in-time inhouse eLearning, and special courses where instructors visit the workplace, or staff attend sessions off site – these examples are immediately recognizable workplace learning structures. Yet the importance of having well-organized, easily accessible and centralized internal reference materials such as up-to-date procedures, policies, and quick reference guides is often overlooked. Attran (2019) asserts that, “a large portion of all work today is information work that requires information to be executed, and for which information often determines the outcome of the work” (p.16). Synchronous or event oriented workplace education may introduce new concepts and initiate employee learning, but building the infrastructure to house the reference material will provide a robust and evolving resource for staff to access and reinforce their knowledge. However, as Attran explains, “many enterprises do not consider information as an organizational resource and therefore do not manage it as such (p.16). When workplaces’ internal knowledge bases are intentionally designed and maintained, this information tool can empower employees to initiate their own just-in-time training to activate and satisfy a sense of agency and independently navigate their work life on a daily basis. Throughout this paper, we explore the transformation and usability of workplace internal knowledge bases, first established as physical user manuals or in-house libraries, then displaced through a chaotic adaptation of early electronic document management systems and eventually other modern digital solutions.

Assemblages, Pathways and Usability

In most workplaces procedural documents exist and are actively generated, but the methods used to store and access them can vary drastically, may be numerous, or be dispersed amongst locales. Rolland & Hanseth (2021) suggest we think of these formal and informal methods as assemblages, and explain that this term “refers to how socio-technical entities relate to other entities” (p. 768). When considering internal knowledge bases and modern information management, we can think of inadequate assemblages to be one or a collection of the following: in a physical user manual; collected on an employee’s personal hard drive; in an email folder; in a individual’s training binder; in a limitedly shared digital library used by a select group of individuals. Although the usability of these disconnected assemblages may be perceived as effective for the specific individuals accessing them, their usability from an organizational perspective is significantly lacking as these assemblages do not promote a centralized information source. A centralized and connected digital assemblage promotes consistency of practice when accessing information, allows for streamlined updates, and enables consistent access to information regardless of an employee’s work location, or work status (for example, employee leaves of absence or turnover). Attran (2019) concurs, “an effective digital workplace cannot be merely a combination of existing tools; the workplace must be enhanced by context, structured and unstructured information and consistent coverage of information flows” (p. 18). Digitization affords workplaces the functionality to integrate informational tools for optimum usability, yet if they neglect to invest the required time, staffing, and funding to implement these tools, the users may revert to what they know, which can result in rudimentary usage of sophisticated digital tools that are capable of much more.

Rolland & Hanseth (2021) also present the notion of path theory in their theoretical framework. They explain that, “path dependency refers to a phenomenon where historical contingent events influence present options for change” (p. 768). In other words, former practices evolve and converge over time to form a stable pathway of work and when new methods (paths) are introduced they can be difficult to implement if the former paths are strong or remain stable. In order to promote change, old paths must be destabilized, while the new path is reinforced, promoted and consequently stabilized over time (p. 168). Essentially, new technologies and the ways they are introduced into environments might effectively reconfigure their users (Woolgar, 1990) by anticipating their existing paths, and influencing their actions to direct them toward new paths. When Woolgar (1990) asserts, “the text might be said to be designed (perhaps implicitly, perhaps unconsciously, but always within a context of conventional resources and expectations) for the reader” (p. 69), he is saying that the objects we create are embedded with a purpose, or rather are designed, for a particular use or a particular reading. To take Woolgar’s cue and consider new technologies as text and the reader as user, we can understand that well-written digital technologies are more likely to engage and affect (or configure) the user.

Displacement / Media Convergence

Hinnings et al. (2018) define digital transformation as “the combined effects of several digital innovations bringing about novel actors (and actor constellations), structures, practices, values, and beliefs that change, threaten, replace or complement existing rules of the game within organizations, ecosystems, industries or fields” (p. 52). Inconsistently executed digital transformation has led many workplaces to operate in unintentionally hybrid environments that ultimately result in the multiplication of numerous assemblages of internal knowledge bases (Organisciak, 1999). Initially, our focus was to look at internal knowledge bases and the displacement of the paper-based user manual by digital reference library, yet our research revealed that this displacement is not an event that happened swiftly and cleanly, but is instead ongoing and messy; an entanglement of past methods, legacy systems, new technology, digitization, stabilized and destabilized pathways, varying levels of skills and expertise, funding considerations, multigenerational user configurations and hybrid working environments. This displacement is reflective of the fluctuating and complex nature of media convergence. 

At varying degrees, both authors of this paper actively experience the chaos and disorganization of our respective workplace electronic document management systems, yet to focus our exploration outside of anecdote and personal experience, this paper centers around the 6-year transformation of practice documented by Rolland & Hanseth in their 2021 longitudinal case study of a mid-sized oil company’s shift to a centralized document management system using Microsoft SharePoint. For privacy reasons, in their writings they dubbed this company GlobalOil. We chose this example as we found it most closely represented our own experiences in that the document management practice is focused on internal information usage, as opposed to client facing purposes. Additionally, SharePoint is a system we both have experience using, as it is commonly adopted in government and educational work environments that have long standing relationships with Microsoft as an enterprising platform.

Part 2: Connections to Media Convergence & Usability

A Brief Background of Electronic Document Management Systems

A digital transformation has been taking place in document and records management since the 1980s (Adam, 2007). Most of the systems available then were Document Image Processing Systems (DIP) that were structured like electronic filing cabinets. Documents were scanned, indexed, and stored for later retrieval. In the 1990s these systems advanced to include a routing feature that allowed scanned images of documents to be sent to the appropriate staff (Adam, 2007). These more advanced systems, called Electronic Document/Records Management Systems (EDMS/ERMS), could integrate with Microsoft Office and like a library, allowed users to check material in and out while maintaining a versioning control system that kept track of revisions made in the documents. These early systems often managed paper-based documents. So, while the management system was electronic, the documents and records within the system were primarily physical. 

The inconsistencies in transforming to an entirely digital document management system arose in the graduated way these systems came to manage electronic records and documents without well-defined standards for compliance (Adam, 2007). Some of the first compliance standards to be applied to digital document management systems came from governments keen to describe and refine their own functional requirements into the early 2000s (Adam, 2007). Education lagged behind government and corporate enterprises and even those education systems in mature, western democracies only began ambitious digitization in the mid-to late 2010s driven by policy opinions that digitization would increase economic productivity (Saari & Santti, 2018). Therefore, the same inconsistencies in the resulting hybrid physical/digital system of documents, images, and even workflows have plagued each group of stakeholders with a patchwork of gradual digital transformation. We further describe this patchwork through the lens of media convergence and usability.

Media Convergence

When reminded that “…the implementation of new technologies doesn’t mean that the old ones simply vanish into dusty museums” (University of Minnesota, 2010), we can visualize a world with diverse and multifaceted forms of media, and this may seem exciting – but when faced with the reality of media convergence in a workplace burdened with heavy workloads, restrictive budgets and “information overload” (Attran, 2019, p. 2), it creates a complex and confusing actuality. In 2001, Henry Jenkins described this time as “…a digital renaissance-a period of transition and transformation that will affect all aspects of our lives…[it] will be the best of times and the worst of times, but a new cultural order will emerge from it”. From our lived experience working in transitional workplaces, it feels as though we are very much in the midst of a dynamic yet volatile period where consistent and efficient streamlined workflows are conceivable but not yet possible. However, Rolland & Hanseth’s (2021) case study presents a scenario that ultimately ends well with stumbling blocks along the way.

Prior to the implementation of SharePoint, GlobalOil stored their internal documentation in various locales, using different practices. Rolland & Hanseth describe their electronic document management methods as “two assemblages” (p. 769): The first being through the engineers’ design software, which had its own archiving functionality for technical documents, and the second was through a separate enterprise content management system for formal documents. Additionally, staff had their own digital files on servers and some staff kept separate documentation on their laptops (pp. 669-770). Although the text does not further detail places information may be housed, (for example, did the staff have any paper manuals clipped into binders? Were there important notices that only existed within email? Did anyone keep quick reference guides posted on an office wall?) it is likely that because the case study focused on the management of digital content, they inadvertently presented the assumption that full technological convergence had been achieved at GlobalOil. While this is doubtful, Roland & Hanseth’s (2021) description of GlobalOil’s prior document management highlighted for us that the displacement we are exploring is not as simplistic as one technology replacing another, but rather, a chronographic and exponential multiplication of technologies and practices reflective of users both collectively and individually discovering what new technologies might afford. Rolland & Hanseth describe GlobalOil’s prior document management methods as “fragmented… with considerable path dependency” (p. 77), regardless, shifts in the company’s direction resulted in a requirement to achieve greater compliance in documentation practices, which pushed GlobalOil to implement the use of SharePoint.

Usability

Usability as it relates to electronic document management systems can be broken down into several components. First, we can consider how the system integrates with existing digital infrastructure, physical infrastructure, and workflows. Then, we can consider how the tool or tools employed to construct the system are usable. Finally, we can explore the configuration of users in how users cope with the change to digital document management systems and in ongoing user support. It is worth noting the impetus for such a digital transformation. Above, we mentioned that digitization projects have sometimes occurred due to the perception that such a transformation will improve economic productivity. This is one important catalyst and may help to explain the gradual nature of some of these transformations but in our anecdotal experience, more widespread and sweeping changes that consolidate the shift to digital systems are typically as a result of another high-impact institutional change, or internal/external crisis (Adam, 2007). While we cannot blame only one catalyst for beginning the shift to digital document management, we can certainly point to one as an accelerant that provokes the long awaited adoption of widely available technology that institutions already have access to at the time of crisis. In our case study, GlobalOil’s catalyst was a change in drilling equipment, forcing them to implement a much more regulated program for their technical documentation as a result of changing product standards (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021).

As previously mentioned, GlobalOil implemented their electronic document management system using Microsoft SharePoint. For speed and efficiency, management and the IT department elected to use an out-of-the-box version of SharePoint without additional plugins or other add-ons and special features. One might imagine this as the standard version of SharePoint that as part of MS Office suite, had limited affordances  before it could become more customizable for SharePoint users. A substantial challenge that must be addressed when implementing an enterprise platform to serve an entire organization is that from a usability perspective, how will the existing assemblages in the institution a) migrate their documents and b) amalgamate them into the new system. For GlobalOil, these challenges were left to be resolved by the IT department who were forced to rapidly program a customized, more usable version of SharePoint with apps, modules and “related document management practices” (p. 770). If we are concerned with users being configured by a tool, here we might notice that users are not only configured by the system to organize archived information, and initiate taxonomies through the standard versioning control of SharePoint (which, as evidenced by our case, is not something that can be done well in the standard package) but also through the hurried decisions made by a separate IT department in terms of customizable features and decisions made about how to manage the documents themselves. Not only the user, but the information itself is being configured through the defining of document types, metadata for documents and the defining of the organizational structure of information and how workflows are integrated (Adam, 2007). Users are then configured to treat their information in the way prescribed by the tool, and the IT department’s configuration of the tool. The way the newly implemented SharePoint was disseminated through the company, was to push the tool to other ‘user communities’ and then to provide robust training courses on using the tool (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021). The organization employed a top-down approach which validates our view that users were being configured by the tool, the IT-modified version of the tool, the IT-defined taxonomies, and the IT training, rather than allowing the users at any point to configure SharePoint themselves, or participate in any configuration activity. 

With regard to the usability of the SharePoint platform, like we have experienced in our workplaces, GlobalOil needed to migrate the documents from older versions of SharePoint (2007) to newer versions of SharePoint (2010) in order to take advantage of the tool’s updated affordances (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021). GlobalOil implemented a hybrid system that retained elements of the older version of SharePoint and amalgamated them with elements from the new version. One of the usability-related affordances of the new version of SharePoint was a feature that integrated the platform into GlobalOil’s existing digital infrastructure via an Active Directory which gave users access to the documents and document libraries that were relevant to them (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021). In another effort to improve usability, the IT team developed a set of features exclusively for the engineering team to provide them with equipment insights. As the platform improved, GlobalOil saw increasing use of SharePoint among employees pointing to the displacement of older systems in favor of the newer one. This use continued to consolidate through other version updates (from 2010 to 2013 versions) and as the versions’ usability improved. 

In summary, from approximately 2009 until 2015, GlobalOil displaced its previous document management systems with a centralized system that included a more comprehensive set of features for digital document management. By looking at the transition to SharePoint through the lens of media convergence and usability, we have described the stages and elements of this transition. Much of this transition feels familiar as SharePoint has become a nearly ubiquitous tool for hosting digital document libraries for government, industry, and educational institutions. In the final section, we describe where this transformation failed and succeeded by reconsidering media convergence and usability more critically. 

Part 3: Critical Analysis

A key difficulty that presented itself in the described action taken at GlobalOil to move toward a digital document system was user buy-in and uptake. It took until the second-to-last documented version of SharePoint (2013) in order for the last group of employees to willingly engage with the new system, on the new platform (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021). In other words, it was a two-year transition to get all users using the platform. For such a large transition, this timeline seems reasonable, however we believe that if the company had considered its users more carefully, they might have avoided some of the challenges in this process. This echoes one of our own experiences at a Canadian higher educational institution in which the flow of information, condition of the information architecture, and buy-in of users to the digital document management system has been uneven, confusing, and unnecessarily difficult. This section will discuss a set of issues through the lenses of path dependence, assemblages, media convergence and usability that may shed insight on why users might hesitate to adopt these new systems.

Culture Change and Change Management

An additional aspect of the system transformation at GlobalOil to consider is change management. In the initial stages, implementing such a system is a vast shift in thinking and working for an organization. GlobalOil had a set of pre-existing systems before implementing SharePoint including the sub-assemblages of DocuShare and SolidWorks, but the shift to a company-wide system entirely on SharePoint was still a significant shift. The process of getting users on board with SharePoint involved destabilizing the prior assemblages and merging them into an integrated assembly and onto a new path in document management (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021). As we discussed above, the catalyst for this change was the implementation of new drilling equipment and therefore a greater need to organize, host, and share technical documentation. The first two years of this transition were considered failures for GlobalOil as the company was unable to shift users away from the existing system and onto the new one (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021). In their description of the system design and who considered its affordances, Rolland and Hanseth describe very little about the users themselves aside from identifying the groups of users who would not make the switch to SharePoint. It is apparent that the company did not pay enough attention to re-configuring users’ expectations of the system and even the ways in which they consider and work with information at the beginning of the transformation process (Adam, 2007). Failing to consider the user and their reliance on previously established paths meant that GlobalOil had to re-evaluate its intended configuration of SharePoint and scramble to customize it appropriately for GlobalOil’s specific users.

Changes to the Digital System

The failure to consider the user described above leads us to discussing media convergence. This process was not only about digital transformation from paper to an electronic management system. Rather, this was a convergence of (likely) paper-based assets, prior electronic systems that had become obsolete, and different versions of the very platform GlobalOil was shifting toward. Regarding usability, not all units at GlobalOil required the same organizational structure for SharePoint, nor were any individual units consulted. The out-of-the-box version of SharePoint originally implemented could not meet all of the user needs from each unit forcing management to pause the digital transformation until adjustments, modifications, and a re-thinking of the technological affordances of the basic SharePoint platform could be accomplished (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021). At no point was it described that users were consulted about their needs and in what ways the system should be configured to meet them. This top-down approach imagined users as empty vessels waiting to be configured by the affordances of the tool as designed rather than imagining them as actors with ideas of their own around configuration. This caused further user resistance and a scramble to manage the convergence of prior systems into one. 

Document Types and Organization

Finally, we make the argument here that SharePoint is not the only tool configuring the user. We believe that the way SharePoint allows users to organize information and tag it for retrieval also configures users’ understanding of the information itself. How each unit within the company organizes itself and its information architecture in the decentralized assemblages was potentially more participatory. The users in the unit might have been afforded opportunities to organize, title, tag, and connect content in a local way suitable for the individual unit. Using SharePoint’s more centralized system with only one way of organizing information in a way rejected the cultural convergence that comes with media convergence. Rather than having a say in how information is organized and tagged, users were forced onto a centralized system that initially had no customizable options for user groups that required the tool to have different affordances. Once in-house apps and features were developed specifically for groups of users, they were much more willing to engage with the new system (Rolland & Hanseth, 2021). We argue that by generating user input, or surveying how users were engaging with the prior set of assemblages and paths, the implementation team would have had a much better idea of the kinds of usability requirements necessary to meet the needs of the whole company (Issa & Isaias, 2015).

Conclusion

Given the chaotic nature of the first two years in the transition to the SharePoint platform, the displacement to one, centralized electronic document management system was successful. As reported above, the eventual result was the buy-in from even the most hesitant of the company’s users (the engineers). If the implementation had considered users more carefully, both from a user experience perspective and from a perspective of collaboration and generation, then the transition might have been much smoother. In this case study we have examined the transition of one company’s document management system to an electronic enterprise platform. During the transition time and after, the impact in employees’ work was likely evident in low morale, low productivity, and in general confusion and resentment (Adam, 2007). Having worked with poorly organized document management systems ourselves, we can also confirm the kinds of effects they can have on one’s work.

Last, given the complexity of moving to large digital systems that are organization-defining, it might be advisable to bring in the new system after training, not before, so users are ‘configured’ if you will, to understand the affordances of the system, how to interact with the system, and how the system interacts with their existing workflow before the system goes live. In this type of media convergence, shifts and changes must be supported if users are going to invest in the system and understand how it works.

References

Adam, A. (2007). Implementing electronic document and record management systems. Auerbach Publications.

Attaran, M. (2019). Increasing productivity in the information age. Industrial Management, 61(1), 16-21.

Boys, J. (2022). Exploring Inequalities in the Social, Spatial and Material Practices of Teaching and Learning in Pandemic Times. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(1), 13-32.

Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52-61.

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015) Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer, London.

Organisciak, P., Shetenhelm, S. Vasques, D. F. A. & Matusiak, K. (1999). Characterizing same work relationships in large-scale digital libraries. In N. G. Taylor, C. Christian-Lamb, M. H. Martin, & B. Nardin (Eds.), Information in Contemporary Society. Springer.

Rolland, K. H., & Hanseth, O. (2021). Managing path dependency in digital transformation processes: a longitudinal case study of an enterprise document management platform. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 765-774.

Saari, A., & Santti, J. (2018). The rhetoric of the ‘digital leap’ in Finnish educational policy documents. European Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 442-457.

University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2010). Understanding media and culture: An introduction to mass communication. https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/chapter/1-4-convergence/

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1_Suppl), 58-99.

Proposal: Configuring for Failure and Outcomes Beyond Success

WRITTEN BY Erin Marranca, Noelle Peach & JAMIE HUSEREAU

Rationale

Artist Joel Fisher wrote, “…failure only exists in contrast to success” (2010, p.116), a familiar binary opposition that supports a belief that everything outside the narrow definition of success, must be failure. This restrictive perspective ignores the infinite range of possibilities that occupy the spaces between the binary. Le Feuvre (2010) opines that “in this uncertain and beguiling space, between the two subjective poles of success and failure, where paradox rules, where transgressive activities can refuse dogma and surety, it is here, surely, that failure can be celebrated” (p.19). We too believe that the exploratory and iterative space of process and play is a space where failure can be celebrated, or alternatively, where success can be redefined.

In Woolgar’s (1990) experience with usability testing, the user is configured in ways that not only ensure their success but are predictive of potential failure. As Woolgar states, “insiders know the machine, whereas users have a configured relationship to it, such that only certain forms of access/use are encouraged” (p.89). The configuration of the user intentionally restrains their activity, not explicitly from the position of achieving success, but from a perspective of avoiding failure. However, Woolgar’s reference to these configuration failures alludes to something taboo, forbidden, exciting even, “this never guarantees that some users will not find unexpected and uninvited uses for the machine. But such behaviour will be categorised as bizarre, foreign… It is in this light that we might best understand the occurrence of ‘atrocity stories’ – tales about the nasty things that users have done to our machines” (p.89). What if users’ behaviour was configured to invite these occurrences, rather than to avoid them?

Users are accustomed to being configured within the constraints of right and wrong, success and failure; because of this, we aim to radically reconfigure users to be open to something else: exploration, curiosity, play, fortuitous and varying outcomes, none of which can be absolutely defined as successes, and which may at first be perceived as failures. We wish to explore usability as ‘unusability’ and play with the notion of the user experience to contradict expectations and design for the consideration of failure. In terms of learning, we want to create an object that helps users reflect on their outcomes to recognize problems or appreciate the unexpected in support of the creative process and to reconsider the value of the unfinished state. “We no longer need to face the unfinished with a negative prejudice or a suspended judgment. We have begun to look at a work as somehow complete at every point in its development” (Fisher, 2010, p.117). These ideas will be situated within Woolgar’s idea of user configuration, exploring how failure can be embedded into the user experience and what kinds of responses it engenders.

Description

We propose the creation of a digital artefact in 3D space for users to interact with that challenges the normal sequence of actions, placement of interactions, or expected outcomes that users may anticipate from prior ‘configurations’. We hesitate to call it a game, as the focus is not results-based, yet we garner inspiration from environmental design in gaming to conceptualize a 3D space that houses areas for various activities such as creative exercises and maker-focused experiences. This digital environment is targeted toward young adults such as learners in upper high school or higher education, as part of an introduction to creative practice. When users enter a particular area in the space, they will be met with a task, challenge, or activity to complete (or not complete), or simply to experience and explore. Each area will implicitly include our expanded notion of failure in the design, to challenge users to act in unconventional ways that lead them down different paths, and ways that may make them uncomfortable or frustrated. In this way, users are encouraged to work through their failures, think more critically, learn through exploration, and unconfigure themselves.

We aim to use this project as an opportunity to research and learn web-based applications for building interactive 3D objects and environments, as our team currently has limited experience in this realm. Since we will surely be undergoing our own failure reconfiguration throughout this creative process, our objective is to create at least one interactive space (Minecraft Education Edition), accompanied by prototypes created through digital (Vectary, SketchUp, Block Craft 3D, etc.) and analogue (paper model, wireframe) mediums. Some ideas of activities that we may create in our digital world include:

  • Art-based activities (drawing, painting, etc.) with prompts
  • Digital building, constructing, or making activities
  • AR, VR, MR activities
Educational Usability

A key factor in characterising failure is intention. Failure comes from the embarrassment that arises when our creations and actions land outside intention (Fisher, 2010). Setting intention enforces accountability and allows for space for the failure to exist – it is this space that we are interested in exploring. As failure is essential to the creative process, we want to change and expand users’ perception of it as not simply a negative outcome, but as a dynamic process and range of potentials.

Within the digital 3D space in which our configured users strive for learning, we want to play with the notion of intention. We are considering failure as the intention; intention and chance; undefined intention; and multiplicities of intention. In this world, failing to achieve a goal, may in fact be the intended result, where the goal of that action and the effort of it locates itself within the work that was accomplished, or perhaps through an activity, the user will discover an outcome that differs from their initial expectation, expanding their perception of what is possible.

The intent that is set that provides the opportunity for failure also generates expectations (Burden, 2010). The space we create will subvert the expectations of a learning environment, reconfiguring the space as one in which failure is generated and generative. Expectations are generated by intentions and generate failure in our efforts to meet them. We will attempt to provoke critical thinking, learning, and experimentation by designing a space for users that understands they will fail, yet our design and the users it configures will be prepared to cope with this eventuality.

As our focus is on arts education, a distinct parallel can be drawn between the practice of failure in a safe environment that is without consequence, damage, or risk, and the design of our educational space. We are configuring the user to help them understand that failure while learning is both promising and productive (Lange, 2010).

References

Burden, C. (2010). On Pearl Harbour. In Le Feuvre, L. (Ed.), Documents of contemporary art: Failure (p. 128). The MIT Press.

Fisher, J. (2010). Judgement and Purpose. In Le Feuvre, L. (Ed.), Documents of contemporary art: Failure (pp. 116-121). The MIT Press.

Lange, C. (2010). Bound to Fail. In Le Feuvre, L. (Ed.), Documents of contemporary art: Failure (pp. 131-137). The MIT Press.

Le Feuvre, L. (2010). Introduction // Strive to fail. In Le Feuvre, L. (Ed.), Documents of contemporary art: Failure (pp. 12-21). The MIT Press.

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In The Sociological Review, 38(1_Suppl), 58-99.

IP 2: Artificial Intelligence

I

Who were/are these people, and did/does each contribute to the development of artificial intelligence? How did/does each think “intelligence” could be defined?

Alan Mathison Turing (1912-1954) – Mathematician / Computer Scientist / Cryptanalyst

Turing questioned “can machines think?” (Turing, p. 433, 1950) using a hypothetical game where one of three participants – two human, one machine – analyzes textual communication to determine the identities of the others (Turing, p. 433, 1950), gaining short-hand status in the domain of AI as the Turing Test. Passing refers to whether a machine’s output reads as human. Turing represents an early advocate for knowledge acquisition’s essentiality to machine intelligence (Chollet, 2019, p. 6).

John McCarthy (1927-2011) – Computer Scientist

McCarthy is Co-credited with coining the term artificial intelligence in a proposal for the 1956 Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, initiating artificial intelligence (AI) as a field of study. McCarthy is additionally known for seminal contributions to early networking systems, functionality necessary for the internet to exist (Woo, 2014). Generality permeated his perspective of AI, meaning that intelligence exhibited adaptability and flexibility in novel situations. (Chollet, 2019, pp. 5, 6, 9).

Herbert Simon (1916-2001) – Political Scientist / Social Scientist

Engaged in computer science, economics, and psychology, Simon co-created the first artificially intelligent computer program, the Logic Theorist, a program able to solve complex logic problems (Gugerty, 2006, p. 880). Simon researched decision making and believed that to effectively problem solve, one must first collect and analyze relevant data to full understanding – to Simon, intelligence advances as each experience or decision point informs future action, not unlike learning (The Decision Lab).

Marvin Minsky (1927-2016) – Computer Scientist / Cognitive Scientist

Co-credited with coining the term artificial intelligence (AI), Minsky founded the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. He authored philosophical texts that explore the nature of human intelligence in relation to AI (Rifkin, 2016), yet his perspective of intelligence in AI is retrospectively limited, reflective of collective logical tasks (Chollet, 2019, p. 5). Minsky’s expertise informed Hal 9000 in Kubrick’s’ 2001 A Space Odyssey (Stork, 1997).

Timnit Gebru (1982) – Computer Scientist

Gebru published evidence of racial and gender bias within AI. She recognizes that data and programing are imbued with developer and societal bias: AI is not objective. (Buolamwini & Gebru, 2018). Gebru gained public recognition when fired from Google for identifying risks with AI training of “large language models,” (Hao, 2020) highlighting concerns associated with AI development being exploited by massive companies in positions of wealth and power.

II

How do “machine (programming) languages” differ from human (natural) ones?

Harris (2018) describes programming languages as “logical, precise, perfectly unambiguous”: codes designed by humans to perform specific operations where each phrase represents a particular command. The languages of human-to-human communication (speech, written, body language, etc.) are saturated with nuance, context, history, and shared cultural perspectives. They are not only “imperfect” as Harris describes, but their fluctuating and implicit nature is essential to their definition. Jones (2020) describes the study of pragmatics in linguistics as “being concern[ed] with how people communicate and discern intentions below the level of explicit meaning” (pp. 24-25). Although programming languages are inherently explicit, Jones (2020) explains (or perhaps warns) that via algorithmic pragmatics, algorithms gather extensive data of human behaviour, and use it to uncover implicit information, even beyond what is communicated through natural language (pp. 29-32).

III

How does “machine (artificial) intelligence” differ from the human version?

Chollet (2019) argues that part of the struggle to develop sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) is reflective of the challenge of defining what exactly intelligence is, and without a clear definition AI technology has failed to compare to human intelligence. Advanced AI excels at specifically programmed task-based functionality, at times performing far beyond human ability, but this functionality lacks generalization, “the ability to handle situations (or tasks) that differ from previously encountered situations” (Chollet, 2019, pp. 9-10). In contrast, human intelligence is highly generalized in that we are constantly facing new experiences and using prior knowledge to determine and adapt our behaviour accordingly. Generality is essential to human nature and is an aspect that developers are only beginning to program in comparatively rudimentary ways in contemporary AI. 

IV

How does “machine learning” differ from human learning?

When compared to machine learning, human learning is slow, it comes from everywhere: intentional education, reading, passive observation, interactions, perpetual multifaceted lived experiences. As we encounter life, we build our own subjectivity shaped by the cultures we associate with; each new experience is weighed against our prior knowledge, reflected on, synthesized, and integrated in accordance with our worldview. Machine learning consists of gathering massive amounts of data to systematically analyze it to discover patterns, to then use that information as per programmed metrics (Heilweil, 2020). This data is not representative of one individual’s complex yet cohesive lived experience, it represents the fragmented digital output of millions. Human learning is closely attached to emotional experience, machine learning is emotionally vacant, yet the data it gleans is embedded with infinite emotion (infinite bias) that the machine cannot be programmed to accurately decipher.

V

How do YOUR answers to these questions differ from what a machine could generate?

It took several iterations to write the short biographies in question one. On the first attempt, I reviewed many web-based articles to gather a sense of the individuals. I spent hours wordsmithing to cleverly shorten my responses, only to realize I failed to provide any insight to their perspectives on intelligence. I had skimmed Chollet’s (2019) article enough to know that within was information about intelligence yet had not read it thoroughly enough to achieve comprehension. I read it in depth and re-worked each biography with a new understanding of task-based vs generalized intelligence.

Writing is difficult for me. Also, and perhaps more importantly, thinking about what to write is difficult for me and is often a laborious process. To feel confident in my writing, I must read everything available, think about it extensively, talk about it to those who might engage (e.g., pragmatics with a friend who studied linguistics, algorithmic bias with an archivist friend).

Additionally, part of my personal synthesis is looking for connections. Although not explicitly stated, I always consider Vygotsky’s concept of sociocultural theory when I think of humans learning; I thought of how Jones (2020) implied ideas of actor-network theory and noted that he cited Latour – and from my prior learning, I know why Vygotsky and Latour are relevant.

I print out my texts, I make marginalia!

I like to think that this work was produced idiosyncratically and that an AI generated version of these responses would be too uncanny valley to mistake as human made. 

References

Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018, January). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 77-91). PMLR.

Chollet, F. (2019). On the measure of intelligence. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.01547.pdf

Gugerty, L. (2006). Newell and Simon’s Logic Theorist: Historical Background and Impact on Cognitive Modeling. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 880–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000904

Hao, K. (2020, December 4). We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-ai-ethics-research-paper-forced-out-timnit-gebru

Harris, A. (2018, October, 31). Human languages vs. programming languages. Medium. https://medium.com/@anaharris/human-languages-vs-programming-languages-c89410f13252

Heilweil, R. (2020, February 18). Why algorithms can be racist and sexist. A computer can make a decision faster. That doesn’t make it fair. Vox. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/18/21121286/algorithms-bias-discrimination-facial-recognition-transparency

Jones, R. (2020). The rise of the Pragmatic Web: Implications for rethinking meaning and interaction. In C. Tagg & Evans M. (Eds.), Message and medium: English language practices across old and new media (pp. 17-37). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110670837

Rifkin, G. (2016, January 25). Marvin Minsky, pioneer in artificial intelligence, dies at 88. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/marvin-minsky-pioneer-in-artificial-intelligence-dies-at-88.html

Stork, D. (Ed.). (1997). HAL’s Legacy: 2001’s Computer as Dream and Reality. MIT Press.

The Decision Lab. (n.d.). Thinker: Herbert Simon. The Decision Lab. https://thedecisionlab.com/thinkers/computer-science/herbert-simon

Turing, A. (1950). Computing, machinery and intelligence. Mind, 49(236), 433-460. https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

Woo, E. (2014, March 20). John McCarthy dies at 84; the father of artificial intelligence. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-john-mccarthy-20111027-story.html

IP 1: Users, Uses and Usability

I

As someone with a background in arts and design, Issa and Isaias’ (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interaction, reads as a ploy to convince future programmers that good design is just as important as technical functionality. It can be difficult to comprehend why an unusable product would prevail – but considering my own experience in various workplaces, it is often about cost: what product can we afford? What customizations can we afford to make this system meet our needs? The familiar circumstance of mismatched tool to user needs stands in stark contrast to Papert’s (2020) notion that “…computer presence could contribute to mental processes not only instrumentally but in more essential conceptual ways, influencing how people think even when they are far removed from physical contact with a computer…” (p. 2). Papert conceived digital systems as not only intuitive, but also working to teach us complex ideas, and transform the ways we perceive and interact with our world. This is good design; of which, usability is an essential component.

Issa and Isaias’ (2015) criteria of usability (p. 33) led me to consider tangible aspects of usability: It allows new users to learn through active exploration when guidance is built into the system interface. It is present in systems that are respondent to different approaches, allowing users to reach the same conclusion through various pathways. Usability means the system anticipates potential user error and is comprised of protections to prevent these inevitabilities or support the user when they occur. It utilizes the interface to display streamlined processes, and it integrates modern aesthetics in ways that reinforce functionality. Additionally, Issa and Isaias (2015) highlight two “critical dimensions” (p. 21) of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) that assist designers in maximizing usability, first, that the user be involved as a key aspect of the creation, and second, that aspects of human behavior and psychology are considered in the design process (p. 21).

II

Missing from this model of usability, is the technologically cultural perspective. Designers must also consider: what might users anticipate in direct reflection of their collective technological experiences? What are they accustomed to, and what innovations will build on their expectations? Technology evolves in response to what came before – what signs and symbols will be utilized to embed familiarity, and activate users’ prior knowledge? A system that is considerate of the user’s world affords them the basic level of comfort and ease required to proceed with the effective learning of a new complex tool. This fundamental principle also applies to educational systems and supports usability from an educational standpoint. Papert (2020) suggests a similar sentiment:

It is about whether personal computers and the cultures in which they are used will continue to be the creatures of “engineers” alone or whether we can construct intellectual environments in which people who today think of themselves as “humanists” will feel part of, not alienated from, the process of constructing computational cultures (p. 3).

III

Papert shares an idealized symbiotic future, whereas Woolgar (1990) exhibits a critical view of the reciprocal relationship between human and technology. In Configuring the User, Woolgar (1990) addresses the agency of inanimate objects, specifically a computer’s ability to shape its users. Woolgar explains that the computer manual itself serves as instructions for constructing the user. The manual “defines the correct courses of interpretation and action to be followed” (p. 81) by the user – essentially, configuring a user that acts in ways best-suited for the computer’s benefit. He asserts the physicality of the computer – a clean case with complex technical components hidden inside – is designed as a user restraint, “Insiders know the machine, whereas users have a configured relationship to it, such that only certain forms of access/use are encouraged” (p. 89). Viewing the object as imbued with the intentions of its designers, activates it, and reminds us to be analytical of our relationships with our things as they are not neutral parties.

IV

The general nature of Issa and Isaias’ approach to the HCI and usability design process is practical and assumes designers are working in ideal circumstances where the needs of users are addressed in the “usability evaluation stage” (2015, p. 29). Woolgar on the other hand, perceives the “design and production” (1990, p. 59) of a system as the process of building constraints to police users’ interactions. Perhaps each perspective has validity: We can acknowledge Woolgar’s critical view but look to Papert to find beneficial ways to build our unavoidable relationship with technology, while also applying the pragmatic tools provided by Issa & Isaias.

References

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015) Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer, London.

Papert, S. (2020). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books.

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In The Sociological Review38(1_Suppl), 58-99.

Putting Land Acknowledgements to Work

  1. Briefly explain why you selected this as ‘raw material’ to search for how Indigeneity and Indigenous people are represented in texts that make up our knowledge about and understanding of the history of education in the locale you chose. Explain how this text might have impacted either educational history or Teacher Professional Development.

Although I currently work as an in-house educator within a provincial government organization, my undergrad degree is a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Emily Carr University, and my interest in education stems from a special topic course I took that focused on art and education. The class was about significant schools in modern art education, such as the Bauhaus and Black Mountain College, but also works of art and specific artists that concentrated on pedagogical themes or even pedagogy as a medium. From this course, and through anecdotal bits and pieces picked up throughout my time at Emily Carr, I gathered that the Vancouver art scene in the 1960s was an exciting and experimental time; and, that many of the key artists were associated with two (somewhat in competition) schools: The Vancouver School of Art (now known as Emily Carr University) and the University of British Columbia.

In a search for documents about this time in Vancouver and British Columbia’s art history, I came across this text by Marian Penner Bancroft (2009) on the archival website Vancouver Art in the Sixties titled, UBC in the Sixties: A Conversation with Audrey Capel Doray, Gathie Falk, Donald Gutstein, Karen Jamieson, Glenn Lewis, Jamie Reid and Abraham Rogatnick. As the title suggests, the text captures an informal conversation, and is perhaps a transcript of an audio recording.

I was curious as to whether the conversation discussed or referenced Northwest Coast Indigenous art works, artists, or their cultural influence as my understanding of how this art was perceived and recognized at this specific time is limited. It’s important to note, that the Vancouver Art in the Sixties site exhibits another essay by Marcia Crosby (2009) titled Making Indian Art “Modern”, that is specifically about Indigenous art in Vancouver in the 60s, but my interest was in gauging the prevalence of Indigenous art and culture by reviewing a casual (albeit lengthy) conversation about the general scene at that time.

  1. Identify a specific question you want to answer by selecting and searching this text. What is your search intended (or hoping) to illuminate?  

As stated, my understanding of Indigenous art in Vancouver during the 60s is limited – but I remember learning there was a push for Indigenous art to be seen as contemporary art as opposed to artifact and I hoped that a shift in the perception of Indigenous art would be reflected in the conversation. As the 60s was a time of political and cultural revolution, I also thought there may be reference to influence or inspiration from the many Indigenous cultures that exist on the unceded land where British Columbia is located.

  1. Identify and explain the search terms you will use.  

See below for the terms searched and the resulting hits:

  • Indian – 1

“I also remember a West Indian steel drum band coming — do you remember that?” (Bancroft, p. 6, 2009).

  • Indigenous – 2

“Two people that I wanted to mention in this context are Al Neil and bill bissett because there was this indigenous art movement — I call it indigenous because it was the people here who were doing it. It was of course influenced by all the trends from outside, but the art that came out of Vancouver and the West Coast has its own distinctive character” (Bancroft, p. 36, 2009).

  • Aboriginal – 0
  • First Nations – 0
  • Native – 0

I decided to add two more terms to broaden my search. As there was much discussion of people from various places across North America, I included Métis, and because Inuit printmaking (particularly from Cape Dorset) was prevalent in the 1960s onward, I included Inuit.

  • Métis – 0
  • Inuit – 0
  1. Create a new question, and any additional search term/terms you think might be illuminating.

A major theme of this text is who’s who and from where: who was active at this time, and where did they come from or who they were connected to (such as other well-known artists, collectives or schools). There are mentions of connections to the Bauhaus and Black Mountain College, ties to other parts of eastern Canada, but the conversation largely focuses on ties to the Unites States (“America”) and specifically the West Coast (San Francisco). So, with no mention of the Indigenous art and culture of the region, what other places/cultures were most topical in this conversation?

  • Vancouver – 36
  • America – 27
  • Canad* – 24
  • New York – 12
  • San Francisco – 10
  • Toronto – 9
  • West Coast – 4
  • England – 4
  • Orient/oriental – 4
  • Venice – 3
  • German* – 2
  • Zen – 2
  • Paris – 2
  • Japan – 1
  1. Search and document what you find.

See above.

  1. Report the results (and limitations) of your search and your analysis of those results. 

The retrospective conversational text of these artists does not make any direct reference to Indigenous art or culture in 1960s Vancouver. I searched the terms, Indian; Indigenous; Aboriginal; First Nations; and Native and added in Métis; and Inuit to broaden the search, but even with limited (yet irrelevant) hits, the results were negative. I also read the whole text and other than what is mentioned below, no additional contextual references to British Columbia’s Indigenous art and culture were apparent.

The term “Indian” has 1 result but references “a West Indian steel drum band,” (Bancroft, p. 6, 2009). otherwise known as the West Indies, not peoples indigenous to British Columbia. The term “Indigenous” has 2 results but at a closer look, does not appear to refer to indigeneity in the context sought:

“Two people that I wanted to mention in this context are Al Neil and bill bissett because there was this indigenous art movement — I call it indigenous because it was the people here who were doing it. It was of course influenced by all the trends from outside, but the art that came out of Vancouver and the West Coast has its own distinctive character.”

My rapid internet searching concluded that Vancouver-based poet, bill bissett (bill bissett, 2009) is not himself Indigenous, though perhaps inspired by Indigenous culture and aesthetics, and Al Neil (Al Neil, 2009), while apparently born in Vancouver, also does not appear to be genealogically connected to any Indigenous peoples of the Northwest. Unless my hurried research is incorrect, in this instance, and at the time of this text (2009) the term ‘indigenous’ is used in a troublesome way and could have been avoided.

It’s unfortunate that throughout the conversation there was no direct reference to indigenous culture in Vancouver in the 60s, but it isn’t surprising. This text read about a time when Vancouver was positioning itself within the global art world – connecting itself to major players: The Bauhaus, Black Mountain College, Andy Warhol, R. Buckminster Fuller, Merce Cunningham, Robert Rauschenberg – just some of the largely famous names dropped, names that are prevalent in art and cultural history courses throughout the world. Perhaps in the 1960s, Vancouver was focused on becoming its own distinct entity, explicitly separate and unique from domineering America, but in it an attempt to be noticed for something new, failed to fully acknowledge and embrace crucial parts of itself.

References

Al Neil. (2009, January 2). Vancouver Art in the Sixties. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://alneil.vancouverartinthesixties.com/

Bancroft, M. (2009). UBC in the Sixties: A conversation with Audrey Capel Doray, Gathie Falk, Donald Gustein, Karen Jamieson, Glenn Lewis, Jamie Reid, and Abraham Rogatnick. Ruins in Process: Vancouver Art in the Sixties.

Bill Bissett. (2009, June 1). Vancouver Art in the Sixties. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from http://vancouverartinthesixties.com/people/13

Crosby, M. (2009). Making Indian Art ‘Modern’. Ruins in Process: Vancouver Art in the Sixties.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet