Problem Statement – Background

(still working on this)
.
Design
There is, at the present time, a good deal of debate about the meaning of the word design, but for the purpose of this dissertation, i will rely on the very general definition provided by the great polymath Herb Simon, who defines it as
.
..a person or people trying to devise a course of action aimed at changing an existing situation into a preferred one [Simon, 1996: 111]
.
Sociotechnical System
The term Socio-Technical Systems has been used since the 1950’s to refer to the object of study of various research agendas also considered to be part of organizational behavior [Trist&Bamforth, 1951], Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) [Hutchins, 1995] Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) [Sutcliffe, 2005] and Social Informatics [Davenport, 2008].  In a 2008 NSF workshop, the term “Science of Socio-Technical Systems” has also been used.  The term Social Shaping of Technology [Williams, 1996] has also been used within studies of sociology, which shares some similarities with socio-technical systems (STS).
..
General Definition of a Sociotechnical System
The original novel contribution of the early exploration of STS – stemming from the early work of Trist and Bamforth in 1951 – was a reaction to previously deterministic, hierarchical and non-democratic theories of organizational design – in which “technology” included both the organizational structures as well as the tools used within those structures.  Different from previously approaches, STS focused on adaptive, decentralized methods for understanding and designing systems so that
..
“..each member of the work group should have an optimal level of variety; learning opportunities; scope for making decisions; organizational support such as training and good supervision; a job recognized as important by the outside world; and the potential for making progress in the future.” (Mumford, 2006, quoting Fred Emery)
..
As the scope of the STS research agenda expands beyond the design of sociotechnical organizational structures, the definition of the term may require additional consideration.  For purposes of this paper, I will define a sociotechnical system as:
..
A set of human and technical components together with the relations connecting them to form a whole unity. (adapted from [Krippendorff, 2001])
..
While each of these words – “human”, “technical”, “relations”, “whole” and “unity” – in this definition has been the subject of debate in other non-STS areas  – and we will not be able to here solve those debates – I will here offer a slightly more robust series of propositions in order to better define sociotechnical systems for purposes of this paper.
.
A socio-technical system:
.
  1. Is Social.  The human portion of its behavior cannot be understood or described at the level of the individual human actor.
  2. Is Technical. The system must have at least one man-made (technical) component.
  3. Is sociotechnical. The system’s human (more than one) and technical (one or more) components are actors which each affect the other.
  4. Is Systemic.  It exhibits the basic characteristics of systems (partially derived from [Ropohl, 1999])
    a. Its meaning is greater than the sum of its elements
    b. Its function is at least in part determined by its structure
    c. It cannot be described on just one level of hierarchy
  5. Is Dynamic. The meaning of a system only begins to emerge once there is an interaction between at least two of its components.
This series of propositions has some important implications for our further consideration of socio-technical systems.  The first is that the meaning of a socio-technical system necessarily emerges out of the interactions of its elements.  In other words, it is impossible to have a priori knowledge of the meaning of a sociotechnical system.  Another implication is that the meaning of a system will continue to emerge over time.  As the elements continue to interact, meaning continues to emerge.   A final implication is that there is no socio-technical system in which only the human or only the technical components is completely responsible for its behavior.
.
Evolution
The word evolution is used quite a bit to refer to change to a given organism or system over time, as is the case when we say that “this organization has evolved into a market powerhouse.”  While this is a correct use of the word, it does not get at the more technical definition of evolution that will be the subject of this dissertation, which has to do with the change in a class of things over time as one generation of things passes some sort of information to successive generations of the thing.  This information is subject to change, though, as a result of the processes of
.
  1. selection
  2. variation (which can happen both genetically and epigenetically)
.
The Problem
Buried in all of this technical terminology is a big, but perhaps very subtle problem: if i am a designer who wants to design a system which will involve both people and technology, and that will benefit from the particular strengths of evolving beyond my initial control:
.
  1. Where do i start?
  2. How much of the system can i control?
  3. How much of the system should i control?
  4. How much variation do i want in the successive generations of the design?
  5. Is it possible to control the amount of variation in successive generations?
  6. What are the environmental conditions that are most amenable to this type of design? How do i know?

.

Examples

This problem exists all around us.  In business, the concept of the franchise, the ponzi scheme, the chaordic organization [Hock, 2000] are all examples of a design of sociotechnical systems that are meant to evolve, to some extent, beyond the full control of the original designer.  In software, open source software is an example of a sociotechnical system that is meant to evolve, to some extent, beyond the full control of the original designer.  More recently, sociotechnical systems like Twitter, Facebook, Salesforce, etc. have used API’s as a mechanism for enabling evolution beyond the full control of the original designer.  The designers of these systems, however, have a huge task before them.

If they get the initial design right, they enable evolution of their product in one or more successive generations of “offspring” in the form of applications, which, though different from their parent, still maintain some of the characteristics of their shared parent.  Twitter, for example, spawned a second generation of applications which, based on the initial design decisions of the Twitter organization, had a certain amount of variation in the population.

Dissertation Bibliography

—————————————————————————————————
Design
—————————————————————————————————

Fischer, G., & Giaccardi, E. (2006). Meta-design: A Framework for the Future of End-User Development. In End User Development (pp. 427-457). Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5386-X_19.
Giaccardi, E. (2005). Metadesign as an emergent design culture. Leonardo, 38(4), 342-349.
Krippendorff, K. (2007). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Artifact, 1(1), 56-59.
Maturana, H. (1997). Metadesign. article hosted by Instituto de Terapia Cognitiva INTECO–Santiago de Chile, available at: www. inteco. cl/articulos/006/texto_ing. htm.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World-Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence. Educational Technology Publications Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial – 3rd Edition. The MIT Press.

—————————————————————————————————
Participatory Design
—————————————————————————————————
Kensing, & Blomberg. (1998). Participatory design: issues and concerns, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3), 167-185. doi: 10.1023/A:1008689307411.
Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design, Commun. ACM, 36(6), 24-28. doi: 10.1145/153571.255960.
Muller, M.J. Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI. In J.A. Jacko and A. Sears, eds., The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications. CRC, 2002.
—————————————————————————————————
Systems
—————————————————————————————————
Anderson, P.W. (1972), “More is Different: Broken Symmetry and the Nature of the Hierarchical Structure of Science”, Science 177(4047): 393-396
Cariani, P. (1992). Some epistemological implications of devices which construct their own sensors and effectors. Toward a practice of autonomous systems-Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life, 484-493.
Churchman, C. (1968). West. The systems approach. New York: Dell Publishing.
Cilliers, P., Complexity and Postmodernism, Routledge, London (1998)
Dervin, B. (n.d.). CHAOS, ORDER, AND SENSE-MAKING:
A PROPOSED THEORY FOR INFORMATION DESIGN.
Klir, George. Facets of Systems Science. Plenum Press, New York. Second Edition: Kluwer/Plenum, New York, 2001.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchal, J. H. (1975). On the Concept of a System. Philosophy of Science, 42(4), 448-468.
Marton, F. (1994). On the structure of awareness. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenographic research: Variations in method (pp. 176-205). Melbourne, Australia: Office of the Director EQARD, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Mattick, J. S., & Mehler, M. F. (2008). RNA editing, DNA recoding and the evolution of human cognition. Trends in Neurosciences, 31(5), 227-233. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.02.003.
Maturana (1970): Biology of Cognition. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://www.enolagaia.com/M70-80BoC.html#I.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. New Science Library: Distributed in the United State by Random House, Boston.
Medina, E. (2006). Designing Freedom, Regulating a Nation: Socialist Cybernetics in Allende’s Chile. Journal of Latin American Studies, 38(03), 571-606.
Pattee, H. H. (1995). Evolving self-reference: Matter, symbols, and semantic closure. Communication and Cognition – Artificial Intelligence, 12, 9–27. doi: 10.1.1.17.6467.
Pattee, H. H. (2007). The necessity of biosemiotics. Matter–symbol complementarity. Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis, 115–132.
Rocha, L. M. (1998). Selected self-organization and the Semiotics of Evolutionary Systems. Evolutionary Systems: Biological and Epistemological Perspectives on Selection and Self-Organization, 341-358.
Walker, J. (n.d.). The Viable Systems Model Guide 3e. Retrieved February 4, 2008, from http://www.esrad.org.uk/resources/vsmg_3/screen.php?page=introduction.
Winograd, T. (1987). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley.
—————————————————————————————————
Culture/History/Media
—————————————————————————————————
Barber, B. R. (2004). Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age, 356. University of CaliforniaPress.
Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave hci meets third wave challenges In , Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles (pp. 1-8). Oslo, Norway: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1182475.1182476.
Bryan, F. M. (2003). Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works (p. 320). University of ChicagoPress.
Ceaser, J. (1985). Alexis de Tocqueville on Political Science, Political Culture, and the Role of the Intellectual. The American Political Science Review, 79(3), 656-672.
Digg / how digg works. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://digg.com/how.
Digg / townhalls & meet-ups. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://digg.com/townhall.
Digg users revolt over aacs key – boing boing. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/02/digg-users-revolt-ov.html.
Gannett, R. T. (2003). Bowling ninepins in tocqueville’s township, The American Political Science Review, 97(1), 1-16.
Hague, B. N., & Loader, B. (1999). Digital democracy: discourse and decision making in the information age, 277. Routledge.
Hayek, F. (n.d.). Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society: Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.econlib.org/Library/Essays/hykKnw1.html.
Kanstrup, A. M. (2003). D for Democracy – On Political Ideals in Participatory Design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 15, 81-85.
Klein H. K. (n.d.). Tocqueville in Cyberspace: Using the Internet for Citizen Associations. Text, . Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/utis/1999/00000015/00000004/art00002.
Krueger, J. , Cody, S. and Peckham, M. (2006, Aug) Bridging and Bonding in Cyberspace? The Impact of Online Communities on Social Capital and Political Participation  <PDF> Retrieved 2006-10-05 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152576_index.html
Lando, T. (1999). Public participation in local government: points of view, National Civic Review, 88(2), 109-122.
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. Penguin Press.
Lichterman, P. R. (2005, Aug)  ”The unhappy marriage of Tocqueville and social capital: Scenes from local volunteering” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA Online <PDF> Retrieved   2008-02-24 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p19987_index.html
Lichterman. (2006). Social capital or group style? rescuing tocqueville’s insights on civic engagement, Theory and Society, 35(5), 529-563. doi: 10.1007/s11186-006-9017-6.
McLuhan, M. (2001). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (p. 400). Routledge.
New England’s gift to the nation–the township.: An oration,/ by Arnold Green, with a poem by Henry C. Whitaker, delivered July 5, 1875.
Green, Arnold., Whitaker, Henry C.
Providence: Angell, Burlingame & co., 1875.
Pew internet: women and men online. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/171/report_display.asp.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival ofAmericanCommunity. NewYork:Simon& Schuster.
Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. P. (1999). Civic engagement in american democracy, 548. Brookings InstitutionPress.
Tocqueville, Alexis. [1835] 1988. Democracy in America. Ed. J. P. Mayer. New York: Harper Perennial.
Zimmerman, J. F. (n.d.). The New England Town Meeting: Democracy in Action. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=101030193#.
—————————————————————————————————
Human Computer Interaction
—————————————————————————————————
Aoki, P and Woodruff, A (2005). Making space for stories: ambiguity in the design of personal
Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2007). Docile avatars: Aesthetics, experience, and sexual interaction in Second Life. Proceedings of British HCI 2007. Lancaster, UK.
Bardzell, S., & Odom, W. (2008). The Experience of Embodied Space in Virtual Worlds: An Ethnography of a Second Life Community. Space and Culture 11 (3), 239-259.
Barnard, L., Yi, J. S., Jacko, J. A., & Sears, A. (2007). Capturing the effects of context on human performance in mobile computing systems. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 11(2), 81-96.
Blackwell, A. F., Fitzmaurice, G., Holmquist, L. E., Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (2007). Tangible user interfaces in context and theory. In CHI ‘07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 2817-2820). San Jose, CA, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1240866.1241085.
Boustedt, J. (2008). A methodology for exploring students’ experiences and interaction with large-scale software through role-play and phenomenography. In Proceeding of the fourth international workshop on Computing education research (pp. 27-38). Sydney, Australia: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1404520.1404524.
Communication systems. Proc. CHI’05. pp. 181-190.
Dourish P. Where the Action Is. The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press (2001).
Gaver, W, Beaver, J, and Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design.  Proc. CHI’03.
Gaver, W., Sengers, P., Kerridge, T., Kaye, J., & Bowers, J. (2007). Enhancing ubiquitous computing with user interpretation: field testing the home health horoscope. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 537-546). San Jose, California, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240711.
Paul Dourish, What we talk about when we talk about context, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, v.8 n.1, p.19-30, February 2004  [doi>10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8]
Sengers, P, Liesendahl, R, Magar, W, Seibert, C, Mueller, B, Joachims, T, Geng, W, Martensson, P, Hook, K (2002).  The Enigmatics of affect.  DIS ’02.
Sengers, P., Boehner, K., Mateas, M., & Gay, G. (2008). The disenchantment of affect. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 12(5), 347-358.
Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
—————————————————————————————————
Organizational Theory
—————————————————————————————————
Argyris, C. Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organisational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1993.
Hock, D. W., & International, V. (2000). Birth of the Chaordic Age. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Miner, J. B. (1982). Theories of organizational structure and process. New York: The Dryden Press.
Snowden. D.J. and Boone, M., “A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. (cover story),” Harvard Business Review, vol. 85, pp. 68-76, November,2007.
Trist, E. L. (1951). Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longxwall Method of Coal-Getting: An Examination of the Psychological Situation and Defences of a Work Group in Relation to the Social Structure and Technological Content of the Work System. Human Relations, 4(1), 3-38. doi: 10.1177/001872675100400101.
Weick, K. E. (2000). Making Sense of the Organization (p. 496). Blackwell Publishing.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. Jossey-Bass San Francisco.
Weick, K. E. (2000). Making Sense of the Organization (p. 496). Blackwell Publishing.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. Jossey-Bass San Francisco.
—————————————————————————————————
Value Creation
—————————————————————————————————
Allee, V. The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Prosperity through Value Networks, Butterworth-Heinemann 2003
Benkler, Y. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale Press, 2006.
Christensen, C. The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will Change the Way You Do Business (Collins Business Essentials) 1997
Ford, H., & Crowther, S. (1922). My Life and Work.
Franke, N., von Hippel, E., & Schreier, M. (2006). Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead-User Theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 301-315. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00203.x
Häkkilä, J., & Chatfield, C. (2006). Personal customisation of mobile phones: a case study. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles (pp. 409-412). Oslo, Norway: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1182475.1182524.
Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press.
Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. (1999).The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,.
Porter, M. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press, New York, 1985.
Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers. Harvard Business School Press.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Stabell, C.B. and Fjeldstad, O.D. Configuring Value for Competitive Advantage: On Chains, Shops, and Networks. Strategic Management Journal,  19, 413-437, May 1998.
Von Hippel, E. (2002). Horizontal innovation networks: By and for users.MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper No. 4366-02, June, 2002.

Title: A Framework For The Design of Evolutionary Sociotechnical Systems

When producing anything, it is difficult to know how to approach the relationship between the work and its title.  Does the title determine the work?  Does the work determine the title?  In this case, i will likely be moving from title to work and back again frequently, changing both as i go.  For now though, i am using the following working title for my dissertation:

A Framework For The Design of Evolutionary Sociotechnical Systems

My reasoning for this title will become far more clear in the next where i explain the problem i am trying to solve, but the current end goal of the dissertation will be a useful framework (conceptual structure and thinking tool) that a designer or design team (person or people trying to devise a course of action aimed at changing an existing situation into a preferred one [Simon, 1996: 111]) would use when the movement from the existing situation to the preferred one requires the design of a sociotechnical (involving interactions of social actors and technologies) system (the social actors and technologies all affect each other) which, in order to be effective, must evolve (change by passing traits from one generation of the system to instances of the system in subsequent generations) over time beyond of the full control of the original designers.

Prologue To The Dissertation Proposal

In order to move along the path toward completing my PhD dissertation, the next step will be a full proposal, submitted to my committee in the Spring semester of 2010, and presented in a public colloquium here at Indiana University.  As a way of leading up to this (and perhaps more importantly to try and steal a little bit of the thunder of my colleague Kevin Makice who is doing the same [just kidding, Kevin]), i have decided to work through this process in a blog format, so that anyone with too much free time on their hands – or, i suppose, with an interest in my area of research – will be able to follow along, and perhaps even gain a few ideas along the way.  I have already benefited from other intrepid souls like Mark Federman, Dan Lockton and others who have worked through their dissertation in a public format like this.

A Rant About Lying or Here Comes Dishonesty

Clay Shirky’s recent blog post entitled “A Rant About Women” has been batted around by the interwebs now for a  few days, due to the conflagrative combination of  his exalted position among the digerati and the completely loaded rant that hits, in a not-very-careful way, a lot of important hot-button issues around gender, gender equality, and the ways that gender seems to play into the process of wheedling one’s way onto and up the corporate ladder.  I will leave the equality issues to the folks who have already set upon it and dive to what i think is a more fundamental omission in Shirky’s piece and the surrounding discussion.

Honesty.

In his post, Shirky all but suggests that lying in interviews for a position is an acceptable and even necessary skill – and that the problem with women is that they are less able to shirk (pun intended) their ethical responsibility to truthfully represent their abilities to a future mentor or employer.  I will leave the deeper and perhaps more important moral question (is it okay to lie if the boss would never find out?) alone for the moment, and deal in this post with the ethical question (is it okay to lie if the boss might find out?), by comparing Shirky’s illustrative hiring story with a few of my own.

In the post, Clay tells the following story:

“When I was 19 and three days into my freshman year, I went to see Bill Warfel, the head of grad theater design (my chosen profession, back in the day), to ask if I could enroll in a design course. He asked me two questions. The first was ‘How’s your drawing?’ Not so good, I replied. (I could barely draw in those days.) ‘OK, how’s your drafting?’ I realized this was it. I could either go for a set design or lighting design course, and since I couldn’t draw or draft well, I couldn’t take either.

‘My drafting’s fine’, I said.

That’s the kind of behavior I mean. I sat in the office of someone I admired and feared, someone who was the gatekeeper for something I wanted, and I lied to his face. We talked some more and then he said ‘Ok, you can take my class.’ And I ran to the local art supply place and bought a drafting board, since I had to start practicing.”

I’d like to contrast this with the two stories of my interview for my first big job as the Webmaster of a good-sized corporation.  To set the scene a little better, it’s important to know that this interview occurred at a time in my life where i was unemployed, fairly poor, and very motivated to get a job.  The first story occurred early in the interview process, where i met with my future boss.  In the interview, i let her know that i had never officially served as a Webmaster, but set about showing her that my previous experience and past ability to get up to speed quickly would more than make up for any temporary shortcomings in my skills.  The second story occurred in the last part of the hiring process, where the head of Human Resources enthusiastically offered me the job.  Her next question had to do with compensation.

“What are your salary requirements?” she asked. ”I require $65k per year,” i said, “but i will take more if you think i’m worth it.”

She offered me $67.5k .  I worked very hard there with fantastic support from my boss and from my colleagues, who encouraged my efforts to grow into the position, learning along the way.  I was given a great deal of freedom, and my boss showed incredible trust in my decisions.  There was a strong bond between my boss and i, and i never feared that i would be discovered as a fraud.  I am still in contact with many of the people from the company 10 years later.  Now contrast this relationship, based on a shared ethic of trust, with Shirky’s recommended alternative: After lying to my boss to inflate her perception of my skills, i would have then had to continue the ruse with the head of HR to ensure that my salary was in-line with my inflated worth to the company.  I then would have had to skulk around my job, always fearful of being found out, and perhaps even distancing myself from my colleagues for fear of them finding out.  In short, while Shirky’s recommended interview tactics might have increased the theoretical odds of my “getting in the door” it would have simultaneously and greatly increased the theoretical odds that the place on the other side of the door would have been a defensive, model I type of environment that would surely have stunted my long-term professional development.

I say that if Shirky’s claim that women are less prone to lying about their qualifications then i will be hiring more women in the future.

Public Service Announcement On Home Invasions

2010 began for us with a bang.  Quite literally.  At around 8am while i was still asleep, a man in a hooded sweatshirt began banging on our front door and trying to get in.  My wife was downstairs at the time, and thankfully did not open it.  Instead, she came upstairs and woke me  up.  Still quite groggy, I first went to the upstairs window to see who he was and if he meant well.  We both sensed that he did not, and this was confirmed when he then began attempting to kick in our door.  My wife immediately called the police, but it was clear that there was no way they would reach us by the time he made it through the door.

By the time i was able to get clothes and shoes on and get to the top of the stairs, i could see that the man had nearly broken through the door, as you can see from this photo:

Our loyal door hung on by a thread

From the top of the stairs, i was faced with three options:

a) engage his rational faculties verbally before he broke the door down,

b) engage his fear faculties before he broke the door down,

c) engage his rational faculties verbally after he broke the door down, or

d) engage him physically after he broke the door down.

With only a few seconds left, i chose option b, and slammed the door closed as hard and as loudly as i could, hoping to intimidate him a little.  Fortunately, it seemed to work.  He stopped kicking the door, but proceeded to look in the window and yell that he wanted to speak with J*** who he thought lived in our house, and who had apparently perpetrated some sort of vile act against a member of his family.  In the end, after a bit of heated dialogue, he wandered away, threatening to return.

I learned a few things through this incident, that i thought i would pass on to other folks (especially folks who live in a sleepy town like Bloomington) as a public service announcement:

1. Locked Doors Are Good Doors - We live in a very tame neighborhood, where i am quite sure that people leave their doors unlocked. In speaking with a police officer after the incident (who had later caught up with and questioned the man), it became clear to both of us that it was a very good thing that ours were locked.  Due to the man’s irrational state, a confrontation inside our house would certainly not have ended peacefully.  Our locked door bought us a minute or two to think, to call the police, and to avoid having to have a potentially violent confrontation.

2. Don’t Defend the House – My first thought was that, if i had to engage the man, that the best approach would be to leave my wife upstairs while i tried to surprise and disable him downstairs.  This is, i think, a very normal response.  But it is wrong.  The police officer recommended fleeing in such a situation (where the intruder was not out to get us personally) out another door in the house.

3. Listen To Your Gut – My wife’s gut feel was that this guy was not stopping by just to wish us a happy new year.  She called the police pretty quickly, where i would have waited to see what our visitor wanted first.  She was right in listening to her gut.

4. Art Really Does Inform Life – As i descended the stairs, anticipating the fact that i might have to physically engage some stranger in my house, i quite literally had the fight scene music from the Star Trek television series playing in my head, which at first scared, then amused me.  It might be a symptom that i just watched too much television in my youth, but i prefer to think that in my moment of fear, William Shatner and Gene Roddenberry were somehow watching over me.

Contemplates, Detractors and Mutual Understanding

I and those close to me have noticed for many years that i am not completely “normal.”   Initially this lack of normalcy was chalked up to the fact that i was an only child.  Or that my intellectual aptitude was different.  Or that my parents were quite young when i was born.  Or any number of other factors, including the fact that i am male, from an entirely blue-collar background, the grandchild of an abusive adult alcoholic and many other factors.  This lack of normalcy manifested itself in many ways.

My parents have often recalled that, as a young child considering whether or not to do something wrong, that i would actively calculate whether or not the “crime was worth the time.”  When the payoff was good enough, i would commit the crime and do the time, often without complaint.

Later on in my teen years, my best friend and I would spend hours (often in the midst of a game of “21″ or “horse” on the basketball court) talking about what it was that made our friends, family, politicians, celebrities or other people tick.  We were fascinated with people and their actions, and with the connections between the two.

Throughout High School and College, though i loved to be around people (i was relatively popular with classmates, and went to lots of public events, parties and other get-togethers), i would frequently take off for solo trips – sometimes for days at a time – to the beach, to the mountains or to the woods where i would write poetry, read, or just think – sometimes about people, sometimes about myself and sometimes about the the ultimate nature of reality.

As long as i can remember, though i have enjoyed travel, i have generally found just as much novelty in exploring local environments or in meeting new people close to home with different ethnic, socio-economic, religious and intellectual characteristics.

I have from a very early age seen serious sports as a type of performance art, have really felt that all people are deeply equal in the eyes of their creator and should be in the eyes of their fellow people, and that it is logically impossible for me to always be right.   I have always believed that diligent, excellent work was important (though i did not always act in accordance with this belief).  People have always often told me that i am hard to “rattle,” emotionally, but other people (sometimes the same people) have noted that i tend to do things with passion.  I often am very un-impatient in long lines or delayed flights, as it gives me time to observe people as they deal with interesting social situations.

The combination of these characteristics might have been painfully enigmatic for me except for the fact that i could actually feel the combination, and have had many years to come to terms with the enigma.  Too, i have no good option but to accept this odd set of characteristics, since they seem to be the “me” that has been developing (philosophy wonks might say “being constructed”) for many years now.

Other people, on the other hand, have not fared so well with this enigma – often becoming confused in their analysis of the unifying theme, if any, which might serve to shed light on who i am.

I think i am realizing now, at the age of 38, what one of the major unifying themes might be:

Contemplation

Oft understood to be a hermit who goes to the woods or a mountain to live a life of thought separate from the world, “contemplates” have been popularly misunderstood.  Really, a true contemplate (without getting into a deep philosophical discussion here) is a person who can and does “contemplate” – views or considers with continued attention : meditates.  And this sort of meditation can occur anywhere.  It can happen on a delayed flight or in a long line.  It can occur in a local bar with a group of friends or it can occur alone on a New Hampshire mountaintop at sunrise.  It can occur on a basketball court or standing, as a 2-year old child, in front of the forbidden stereo knobs as he contemplates, meditates on, within his limited capabilities, the deeper dynamics of a moral/ethical situation before him.  In every situation, though, the contemplate has a constant longing to look beneath the surface, to understand the underlying dynamics, to get at the non-obvious things of life.

Detractors

The behavior of the contemplate can be problematic for those who are not  familiar with their way of being.  Their behavior often appears to be at best odd and at worst unhealthy.  For example, to the more extrinsically oriented, the contemplate can seem detached from her emotions when she does not immediately join a popular cause, when she does not immediately reciprocate when accosted, or when she is calm in the midst of pain or tragedy.    To the more prestige oriented, the contemplate’s lack of self-promotion can appear wishy-washy, and his lack of mutual back-slapping can make him seem withdrawn or unappreciative.  To the more fundamentally oriented, the contemplate’s unwillingness to immediately accept popularly-accepted norms seems loose and dangerous.

Mutual Understanding

There is no easy way to create mutual understanding between the contemplate and the not-so-contemplate, and perhaps there is no need, but i continue to search for ways.  It is worth noting that neither the contemplate nor the not-so-contemplate hold a higher position in my judgment.  The difference between them is not one of value, but instead of orientation to the world which then manifests itself in spirit and behavior.

Second-Order Guts

In a recent conversation with a fellow PhD student and Erik Stolterman, it occurred to me that many of us who are working within the field of design, especially within a technical field, face a unique challenge.  The challenge is that we need to develop “Second Order Guts.”

First Order Guts
In case the meaning is not immediately obvious, here it is: It takes a great deal of guts (First Order Guts) for me to accept, in my own work and life, the premise embedded within design philosophy that it is necessary, and even good, to act in the world without access to all of the information which would make it possible for me to lay out a perfect, solid, long-term plan and then to execute that plan.  This takes guts because i and the people around me live in a world which, for many reasons, still want to believe in the concept of the “long-range plan” and the notion that there really are solid, right answers to everything if we just look hard enough.

Second Order Guts
Second Order Guts are even more difficult to develop.  Second Order Guts provide us with the ability to recommend to other friends, family members, clients, students, organizations etc. that it is necessary, and even good, for them to act in a world without access to all of the answers.  I have experienced this many times now in conversations with leaders of small and large organizations who have asked for the “answers” to how they should use social media in their organization.  When my Second Order Guts have been firmly in-place, i’ve been able to persuade them to take a design approach by beginning to use social media based on a loose strategy, learning as they go (which is the best way to make sense of most complex situations).  At times when i’ve lacked the guts, though, i have wavered and stammered wanting to pretend that there are “right” answers and a “right” method.

I’ve noticed an increase in my second-order guts as i continue my research and as i talk to more and more people who are seeking answers, but i am quite sure it will be an ongoing challenge.

Of Newspapers, Content and Community

It has been well-documented that newspapers as we know them are in a major freefall in their ad revenues.

Sometimes the deeper value of something to its community of advertisers, readers, consumers, etc. is not obvious – particularly when that something has been around for a very long time. As an example of this problem, Marshall McLuhan once pointed out that IBM for many years assumed that their value was in making office equipment and business machines. It almost sunk them, until they finally realized that their real value was in processing information.[1] Unless I’m mistaken, newspapers have operated for years on the assumption that their value to readers was in great news content. I wonder, though, if their value was instead all along in giving people a sense of community – both geographic and interest-based (political, industry, etc). In 1835, Sociologist Alexis DeTocqueville wrote of America that

“They need some means of talking every day without seeing one another and of acting together without meeting. So hardly any democratic association can carry on without a newspaper.” [2]

Newspapers really took off in the late 17 and 1800’s – a time in the U.S. where the states were trying to make sense of their new found, loosely-knit country. Newspapers were really the only medium which could do that efficiently – to facilitate national communities of interest (what Tocqueville called “associations” like the political parties, etc.) as well as local communities (townships).

Perhaps what has been hurting newspapers of late (and I’m probably not the first to say this) is that they assumed that their value was in their news content, which as Esther Dyson[3] and others might say is an infinite good – producible and reproducible by anyone with a computer and a camera – even more so when there are groups of them, which happen to include experts in their midst, who are now empowered to publish at the press of a button.

Perhaps what newspapers need is to really get back to their deepest roots, where great content was only one part of their role in facilitating community-building, which is what people really paid for. I’m not exactly sure how they will do this, but i have some ideas which may be food for another post soon.

[1] McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extension of man. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[2] Tocqueville, Alexis. [1835] 1988. Democracy in America. Ed. J. P. Mayer. New York: Harper Perennial.

[3] In 1995 Esther Dyson predicted that the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to “distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

HCI and Complex Systems in 4 Steps

An HCI colleague today asked me to define the study of Complex Systems – especially as it relates to the the study of HCI (human-computer interaction). Now the definition is still pretty hotly contested by mathematicians, cognitive scientists, etc. But this conversation occurred between two HCI folks. Here was my answer, as concise as i could give it (not because my colleague is simple, but rather because we didn’t have a lot of time). I think it bears writing down here for other folks who might be wondering about this. The reasoning works in four basic steps:

  1. A system, as defined by some notable systems scientists, beginning with Marchal [1] is simply S=E,R. In other words, a system (S) is a set of elements (E) and a set of relations (R) between those elements. So for example, as far as an HCI researcher would care, the MySpace “system” might consist of the users, the administrators and the software and the relations between them all.
  2. HCI has primarily concerned itself deterministically with the elements of a system – in this case the users or the administrators or the software. This is to say, that, at its core, HCI has assumed that, if it could know the elements of the system well enough, the outcome of that system could hypothetically be known.
  3. Complex Systems has primarily concerned itself probabilistically with the relations of a system – the relations between the users and the administrators and the software in the MySpace example. So at its core, Complex Systems, because of the complex, unpredictable nature of those zillions of relations, has pretty much thrown out the hope of exactly knowing the outcome of the system, but instead employs its own methods to figure out the probabilities of different outcomes.
  4. Complex HCI (term coined, i think, by Kevin Makice) will try to simultaneously understand both the elements and the relations in systems such as MySpace, etc. – and the ways that one affects the other.

To be complete and just to both disciplines, this post would need to be a great deal longer, since, of course HCI is not completely deterministic, and there are, um, complexities to the Complex Systems side that this simple 4-point post does not address. But the general gist is here, i think – at least as it currently appears to me.

..And from this, it is easy to see the potential synergies between HCI and Complex Systems, for the design of just about any software, web platform, mobile device now must consider not only each user or device (element), but the huge numbers of connections (relations) that will occur between that user or device and the millions of other potential users and devices with whom that person or device will connect.

[1] Marchal, J. H. (1975). On the Concept of a System. Philosophy of Science, 42(4), 448-468.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine