Exploring the Rhetoric on Representing the User

IDEA GROUP PUBLISHING

ITJ3350

701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200, Hershey PA 17033-1240, USA 54 International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 2(4), 54-81, October-December 2006 Tel: 717/533-8845; Fax 717/533-8661; URL-http://www.idea-group.com This paper appears in the publication, International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, Volume 2, Issue 4 edited by Bernd Carsten Stahl © 2006, Idea Group Inc.

Exploring the Rhetoric on Representing the User:

Discourses on User Involvement in Academia and the IT Artifact Product Development Industry Netta Iivari, University of Oulu, Finland

Abstract Users should be involved in information technology (IT) artifact development, but it is often difficult and rare, especially in the development of commercial IT artifacts for external use. This paper critically examines discursive construction of user involvement in academia and in the IT artifact product development industry. First, three academic discourses on user involvement are identified. Then, discursive construction of user involvement is explored in four IT artifact product development organizations, in which user involvement is indirect and labeled as usability work. Five discourses on usability work are identified. They are related to the academic discourses on user involvement, and some of them are criticized (Asaro, 2000) as“forms of technological colonialism,” merely “silencing the users” instead of “giving them a voice.” It is recommended that especially the human-computer interaction (HCI) community should carefully reflect on what kinds of discourses on user involvement it advocates and deems as legitimate. Keywords: discourse; human-computer interaction; usability work; user involvement; user participation

INTRODUCTION

This paper critically examines discursive construction of user involvement1 both in academia and in industry; more specifically, in IT artifact2 product development organizations, developing commercial IT artifacts for external use. Therefore, the focus is on the development context, a central research area in both information systems (IS) (Lyytinen, 1987) and HCI literature (Grudin, 1996). The focus is limited to the product development context

(as contrasted with custom IS development), which is a less studied context in IS research, but is the context in which the field of HCI emerged. In product development, commercial IT artifacts are typically developed for a large user population in a situation in which the users might be not known until the product is in market (Grudin, 1991a, 1991b; Keil & Carmel, 1995; Symon, 1998). However, the product development context should also be considered a critical, even

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.

International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 2(4), 54-81, October-December 2006 55

though a very challenging, context for user involvement. IT artefacts, whether developed in a custom IS or product development context, always condition, enable, facilitate and shape social practices. Altogether, they constitute the rules and resources available for human action (Grint & Woolgar, 1997; Orlikowski & Robey, 1991; Suchman & Trigg, 1991). Also, HCI literature highlights that IT artifacts impose new ways to work, which may be only implicitly designed, but anyhow delivered through the solution. However, an explicit redesign should always be carried out (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Cooper, 1999; Rosson & Carroll, 2002). Also in the product development context, development—explicitly or implicitly—constitutes the boundaries for the users’ work practices, and in constituting the boundaries, an interest in the users seems critical. Indeed, it has been widely accepted in both IS and HCI literature that users should be involved while developing IT artifacts. Participatory Design (PD) especially has been influential in emphasizing active user participation (Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991; Schuler & Namioka, 1993). In IS research, user participation has been a central topic for decades, currently legitimately labeled as an “old, tired concept,” which, however, needs revisiting (Markus & Mao, 2004). The field of HCI has addressed the importance of user involvement in approaches such as usability engineering (UE) and usercentered design (UCD) (Bannon, 1991; Cooper & Bowers, 1995; Gould & Lewis, 1985; Karat, 1997). However, in HCI, user involvement has traditionally been accomplished by “representing the user” in development (Cooper & Bowers, 1995). This paper focuses on the rhetoric on “representing the user” in IT artifact product development organizations. The responsibility to “represent the users” is assigned to a group of specialists called, for example, usability/human factors/UE/UCD specialists in the literature (e.g., Aucella, 1997; Bias & Reitmeyer, 1995; Bødker & Buur, 2002; Borgholm & Madsen, 1999; Fellenz, 1997; Grønbak et al., 1993; Mayhew, 1999b; Mrazek & Rafeld, 1992; Tudor, 1998; Vredenburg, 1999). The “representation

work” carried out by the “user surrogates” is labeled usability work, in which user involvement is informative or consultative (Damodaran, 1996) at the most. Users comment on predefined design solutions or act as providers of information and objects of observation, but they do not actively participate in the design process nor do they have decision-making power regarding the design solution (Carroll, 1996; Damodaran, 1996). I adopted a critical poststructuralist approach informed by Foucaultian tradition3 for the analysis of discourses on user involvement in IT artifact development. I critically examine discourses on usability work, referring to the ways usability work is constructed in practice—in the case organizations involved in this study, but also in academia—in the literature addressing usability work and, more generally, user involvement. Regarding the construction of user involvement in academia, it has been argued that user involvement is a very vague concept and there is a variety of views of what user involvement is and how it should be accomplished (Asaro, 2000; Carroll, 1996; Kujala, 2003). Furthermore, the influential role of academic communities in imposing meanings and particular “truths” to the social world has been emphasized (Clarke, 2001; Cooper & Bowers, 1995; Bloomfield & Vurdubakis, 1997; Finken, 2003; Foucault, 1972; Weedon, 1987). Some studies (Cooper & Bowers, 1995; Finken, 2003) have already examined HCI and PD in the Foucaultian spirit as discourses constructing their objects of study (e.g., the users and the user interface) in particular ways and at the same time legitimizing their existence. This paper continues their work, but adds new insights by reviewing more recent literature and incorporating a product development perspective in the analysis. Regarding user involvement in practice, existing literature has already warned that user involvement may be used only as a buzzword or weapon for achieving surprising or even paradoxical ends (Beath & Orlikowski, 1994, Catarci et al., 2002; Hirschheim & Newman, 1991; Howcroft & Wilson, 2003; Kirsch &


56 International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 2(4), 54-81, October-December 2006

Beath, 1996; Newman & Noble, 1990; Nielsen, 1999; O’Connor 1995, Robey & Markus, 1984; Symon, 1998). Some studies on discourses (e.g., Alvarez, 2002; Bloomfield & Vurdubakis, 1997; Nielsen, 1999; Sarkkinen & Karsten, 2005) have already analyzed discourses in IT artifact development, criticizing them for mainly reinforcing management agendas and goals. However, these studies have been carried out in the custom IS development context. There is a clear lack of both empirical studies and studies on discourses on user involvement in the challenging product development context. Therefore, this paper takes a step towards filling that gap by utilizing a poststructuralist approach informed by Foucauldian tradition. This approach has also gained increasing attention in IS research during recent years (Brooke, 2002; Clarke, 2001; Stahl, 2004), and empirical studies on discourses relying on Foucaultian tradition have proliferated (e.g., Doolin, 1999; Edenius, 2003; Sayer & Harvey, 1997; Thompson, 2003), even though none of them address discourses on user involvement in the challenging IT artifact product development context. The paper is organized as follows: The next section outlines the poststructuralist approach utilized in this research effort. The third section identifies academic discourses on user involvement in both IS and HCI literature. The fourth section outlines the interpretive research approach utilized in the empirical part of this research effort, the cases involved in this study, and the procedures of data gathering and analysis. The fifth section presents the discourses on usability work identified in the empirical material. The discourses are related to particular organizational settings, but also to the wider discursive field in which the academic IS and HCI communities participate and contribute. The final section discloses the central observations of the paper, discusses their implications and outlines paths for future work.

POSTSTRUCTURALIST APPROACH

I rely on a critical poststructuralist approach informed by Foucaultian tradition4 in

the analysis of discourses on user involvement. Within this approach language, subjectivity and power are central notions. Language is in a critical position: It is assumed that language does not represent reality, but produces it. It is maintained that all prevalent definitions are constructed in language. Furthermore, different languages and different discourses using the same language produce different kinds of realities (Weedon, 1987, 2004). Discourses are “certain ways of speaking” that “systematically form the objects of which they speak” (Foucault, 1972, p. 49). Foucault highlights the importance of power in the analysis of discourses. Knowledge and power are both articulated in discourses (Foucault, 1972; Weedon, 2004). Discourses also compete with each other and struggle over meanings in language. There is a quest to disseminate the preferred understandings of the world (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Foucault, 1972, Weedon, 1987). Discourses are both socially constructed and socially constructive. Discourses construct our identities and our objects of knowledge (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Weedon, 2004). Poststructuralism assumes subjectivity to be fragile, contradictory and constantly constituted in discourses (Weedon, 1987, 2004). Discourses offer individuals subject positions that must be occupied if participating in the discourses (Foucault, 1972, pp. 118-119; Foucault, 1980). People are continuously persuaded as subjects in the discourses that constitute individuals as “subjects of a certain kind.” However, people do not only adopt the discourses and the subject positions offered to them, but the discourses can also be questioned and challenged (Weedon, 1987, 2004). Nevertheless, some discourses are more available and influential than others. On the other hand, one needs to acknowledge also that access to the discourses might be limited, and not all individuals have the right to participate in a discourse (Foucault, 1972; Weedon, 1987). Based on this discussion, guidelines for the analysis of discourses on user involvement are outlined. First, it is important to analyze the formation of objects. One needs to analyze



the statements that constitute the objects (e.g., users and the practice of involving them) in discourses. One needs to focus on “certain ways of speaking” that exclude other ways. Foucault maintains that “everything is never said” and “few things are said of the totality.” Therefore, one needs to concentrate on statements that have emerged excluding others. Second, one needs to analyze the subject positions individuals must occupy to take part in a discourse—both as speakers and as listeners (i.e., subject positions offered to and adopted by the researchers and practitioners advocating user involvement, involving the users or being involved as users). Discourses invite people as subjects into the discourses. However, it is also important to acknowledge that access might be limited and only a limited amount of individuals may be allowed to adopt the subject position and consequently participate in the discourse. The analyst needs to ask: Who has the right to speak, the ability to understand, access to the discourses and the capacity to invest the discourse in decisions, institutions, practices? (Foucault, 1972, 1980).

DISCOURSES ON USER INVOLVEMENT IN ACADEMIA

As mentioned, it is widely accepted that users should be involved while developing IT artifacts, but there is considerable confusion about the concept of user involvement, which can range from active user participation to the involvement of users as only providers of information and objects of observation (Asaro, 2000; Barki & Hartwick, 1994; Carroll, 1996; Cavaye, 1995; Karat, 1997; Kujala, 2003). First, HCI literature on user involvement that addresses the challenging product development context is reviewed.

The Practical HCI Discourse

Cooper and Bowers (1995) have analyzed HCI literature as a discourse, and show how HCI legitimizes its existence by constructing its objects—users and the user interface—in particular ways. They separate a first wave and a second wave of HCI discourses. The first

wave of HCI discourse used a “compassionate rhetoric to advocate user-centered design”: HCI was needed since it “represents the users,” who form an ignored group in systems design and computer science. In some texts, even a “political and war discourse” was used—HCI was needed to fight for the users. However, “crisis rhetoric” emerged in the beginning of the 1990s. This second wave of HCI discourse did not criticize the designers5 or the computer scientists, but the first wave of HCI discourse (Cooper & Bowers, 1995, pp. 48-57). HCI was accused of not producing useful results. Furthermore, HCI was criticized of postulating users only as “human factors,” not as ‘human actors”; that is, as active agents working and using the computer systems in particular settings (Bannon, 1991). It was criticized that HCI should involve the users, not only represent them. Claims for more user involvement and for contextual inquiries were expressed (Bannon, 1991; Cooper & Bowers, 1995; Rosson & Carroll, 2002). Interest also emerged related to the place of HCI in the design process and to the relationship between HCI and designers. Cooper and Bowers (1995) argue that currently there is a trend in HCI to empower the designers who are postulated as users of HCI. They claim HCI is always empowering someone, but there has been a shift from users to designers (Cooper & Bowers, 1995). Next, recent HCI literature addressing user involvement in organizations is reviewed. This literature consists of very practical HCI textbooks and articles addressing issues such as how to “design quality HCI” and “make your organization user-centric.” This discourse is labeled as a practical HCI discourse. The speaker is positioned as a consultant and a change agent, offering advice on this quest. This discourse constitutes usability work, in which user involvement is indirect6. There are to be “user surrogates” (called usability specialists from now on) “representing the users in development” (Aucella, 1997; Bias & Reitmeyer, 1995; Cooper 1999, Fellenz, 1997; Grønbak et al., 1993; Mrazek & Rafeld, 1992; Nielsen 1993, Tudor, 1998; Vredenburg, 1999); that is, direct



user involvement is not within the scope of this discourse. Usability specialists are offered a subject position of a user surrogate representing (if not fighting for) the user in development. However, this has proven to be very challenging—the position of the usability specialists is articulated as problematic (Aucella, 1997; Bias & Reitmeyer, 1995; Borgholm & Madsen, 1999; Gould & Lewis, 1985; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Rosenbaum et al., 2000). Some even label their work as a “battle” (e.g., Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Mulligan et al., 1991) to highlight the challenge. All said, the legitimacy of this discourse is established this way. Another position assigned to usability specialists is that of a user surrogate involving the designers, by manipulating and seducing them to “buy into usability work.” The designers are postulated as a very important target group (Aucella, 1997; Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Bekker & Vermeeren, 1996; Boivie et al., 2003; Cooper, 1999; Grudin, 1991b; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Mrazek & Rafeld, 1992; Muller & Carey, 2002; Nielsen, 1993; Seffah & Andreevskaia, 2003; Tudor, 1998; Vredenburg, 1999) who should be involved in usability work (Aucella, 1997; Billingsley, 1995; Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Fellenz, 1997; Gardner, 1999; Tudor, 1998). They should be involved early so the activities affect the design (Aucella, 1997; Gardner, 1999; Grudin, 1991a, 1991b; Muller & Czerwinski, 1999). Altogether, project teams should “buy into usability” (Aucella, 1997; Mrazek & Rafeld, 1992) and the teams should perceive usability specialists as team members and allies (Bias & Reitmeyer, 1995; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Muller & Carey, 2002; Rosenbaum et al., 2000). As one can see, Cooper and Bowers (1995) succeeded in predicting this trend of “HCI empowering the designers instead of the users.” In addition, usability specialists are to act as user surrogates, producing guidelines, tools, methods and processes that prescribe usability work. The literature highlights creation of documentation of best practices, methods and techniques for usability work (Aucella, 1997; Bekker & Vermeeren, 1996; Fellenz, 1997;

Mayhew, 1999b; Muller & Czerwinski, 1999) and integration of usability work into the formal development process (Boivie et al., 2003; Butler, 1996; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Nielsen, 1993; Vredenburg, 1999) as important. Furthermore, usability specialists are positioned as change agents that address many different target groups—management, documentation, training, marketing, different kinds of change and improvement efforts—in their organization. Management’s commitment is postulated as an important criterion for success (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Bias & Reitmeyer, 1995; Billingsley, 1995; Boivie et al., 2003; Cooper, 1999; Grudin, 1991b; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999b; Mrazek & Rafeld, 1992, Nielsen, 1993). A high-level champion allows usability work to have authority, autonomy and access to development (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Billingsley, 1995; Boivie et al., 2003; Nielsen, 1993). Furthermore, usability specialists should be perceived as allies of different kinds of improvement initiatives in organizations (Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a). In addition, marketing, training and documentation should be addressed and cooperation initiated. In all, usability specialists should be able to tailor their message and present their results in languages that each target group understands (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Billingsley, 1995; Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Cooper, 1999; Hutchings & Knox, 1995; Grudin, 1991b; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Rosenbaum et al., 2000; Seffah & Andreevskaia, 2003). In all, usability specialists are supposed to seduce and manipulate a multitude of stakeholder groups to “buy into usability.” The literature argues that usability work should be “sold” into organizations (Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b). Presentation of the things done and the results achieved is recommended (Aucella, 1997; Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Cooper, 1999; Mayhew, 1999b; Muller & Czerwinski, 1999; Rosenbaum et al., 2000; Tudor, 1998). One should also be able to show the benefits achieved (Cooper, 1999; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Rosenbaum et al., 2000). The business perspective is highlighted (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Bloomer & Croft,



1997; Cooper, 1999; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Rosenbaum et al., 2000)—usability work should make sense from the business perspective and be related to key business goals (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Cooper, 1999; Fellenz, 1997). Consideration of costs and benefits is also recommended, since cost-benefit tradeoffs may play a major role in the adoption of usability work (Mayhew, 1999b; Nielsen, 1993; Vredenburg et al., 2002). Resources should be well planned and budgeted (Aucella, 1997; Mayhew, 1999b; Nielsen, 1993) to assure that usability work does not increase development costs and time (Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Nielsen, 1993). Altogether, a competitive advantage and competitiveness in the marketplace achievable through usability work are emphasized. “Selling usability work into organizations” by highlighting the business point of view and cost benefit analyses, and by using the language that sales, marketing and management understand, is advocated. Within this discourse, an ideology of managerialism is evident; management goals are constructed as the main motivator for usability work. The discourse emphasizes profit maximization, work intensification and successful implementation achievable through usability work (c.f., Asaro, 2000; Hirschheim & Klein, 1989; Spinuzzi, 2002).

The Reflective PD Discourse

However, the practical HCI discourse on usability work is by no means the only discourse advocating user involvement in IT artifact development. There is literature in proximity to HCI, but clearly separating itself from “mainstream HCI.” In this literature, critique is addressed to “traditional HCI methods,” especially usability testing. It is criticized for restricting understanding of problems, limiting dialog, inhibiting cooperation between designers and users, having a weak impact on design, and advocating neutrality and objectivity (Bannon, 1991; Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Borgholm & Madsen, 1999; Buur & Bagger, 1999; Bødker & Buur, 2002; Carroll, 1996; Cooper, 1999; Gardner, 1999; Kyng, 1994; Löwgren, 1995). Therefore, this

literature separates itself from non-reflective, objectivist HCI and positions itself within the PD tradition, even though acknowledging there might be a need for some kind of “facilitators” (usability specialists, researcher designers) between users and designers. This literature argues for more cooperative work and reflection related to design practice. The literature maintains that design should be seen as cooperative work, in which people with different competencies appreciate each other and jointly create new work practices. Design needs to be seen as a creative and communicative process involving “mutual reciprocal learning” and “design by doing.” Usability specialists need to support everyone’s participation and make everyone comfortable in participating (Anderson & Crocca, 1993; Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Blomberg & Henderson, 1990; Brun-Cottan & Wall, 1995; Buur & Bagger, 1999;Bødker & Buur, 2002; Bødker & Iversen, 2002; Bødker et al., 2000; Gadner, 1999; Kyng, 1994, 1998; Löwgren, 1995; Rosson & Carroll, 2002). Furthermore, emphasis should be on reflection and improvisation. It is argued that PD should not consist of applying decontextualized methods. Instead, professionalism, reflection and creativity are important. One should reflect on methods and challenge their assumptions. One should ask: Why do we do PD and where do we want to take it? (Anderson & Crocca, 1993; Bansler & Bødker, 1993; Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Bødker & Buur, 2002; Bødker & Iversen, 2002; Clement & Van den Besselaar, 1993; Cooper, 1999; Löwgren, 1995; Löwgren & Stolterman, 1999; Thoresen, 1993). This discourse is labeled as reflective PD discourse in which the participatory and cooperative nature of the design process is highlighted. Furthermore, the focus is on creation of new work practices—a term that makes a distinction with HCI, which mainly aims at developing usability. The speakers within this discourse have adopted the subject position of a reflective research designer. This discourse legitimizes its existence by differentiating itself from objectivist, non-reflective HCI (and IS). In this discourse, users are positioned as skillful



partners in the design process. The usability specialists, if needed at all, are positioned as “reflective facilitators of cooperation and reflection among users and designers.” This discourse has a clear background in the tradition labeled as the PD or cooperative design tradition (i.e., Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991; Schuler & Namioka, 1993). Finken has analyzed this cooperative design tradition as a discourse constructing its objects of study in particular ways and at the same time legitimizing its existence. Finken shows that this discourse constitutes IT artifact development, users and (researcher) designers in a specific way divergent from other traditions. The tradition constructs itself as empowering and other traditions (functional, socio-technical) as hegemonizing—serving the needs of the management. The cooperative design tradition postulates organizations and IT artifact development as conflict-laden, and researcher designers on the side of the oppressed. They should act as advocates of democracy. Design, on the other hand, is postulated as cooperative work that necessitates mutual reciprocal learning. Reality is postulated as socially constructed. Users and researcher designers are positioned as experts whose cooperation as equal partners is needed (Finken, 2003). However, cooperative design in Finken’s article includes both developments during the 1990s (i.e., Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991) and the Scandinavian trade unionist tradition (term derived from Hirschheim et al., 1997; Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996), on which cooperative design tradition is based. However, clear differences can be revealed between the Scandinavian trade unionist and cooperative design traditions, even though the latter is an outgrowth of the former. These differences are discussed next.

The Critical IS Discourse

The Scandinavian trade unionist tradition has been postulated as a very critical and management-hostile tradition in IT artifact development. This tradition focused on workplace democracy and trade union involvement in the development of IT artifacts. The tradition

had a strong Marxist flavor and relied on the notion of conflict between capital and labor (Asaro, 2000; Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995; Bansler, 1989; Bansler & Kraft, 1994; Clement & Van den Besselaar, 1993; Hirschheim et al., 1997; Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996; Kraft & Bansler, 1994; Kyng, 1998; Spinuzzi, 2002). The goal of user involvement was democratic empowerment of the users, which maintains that workers should be able to participate in decision-making in their workplace (Clement, 1994). However, in recent years, political issues have decreased in importance and the current outgrowth of this tradition has been labeled as PD or cooperative design. During this trajectory, the focus has shifted from industrial democracy to the cooperative design process, from political to ethical and from structured institutions (trade unions) to situated, local action, even though the ethical responsibilities of the designer still remain as important (Asaro, 2000; Bansler & Kraft, 1994; Beck, 2002; Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995; Blomberg & Henderson, 1990; Bødker, 1996; Clement & Van den Besselaar, 1993; Gärtner & Wagner, 1996; Kraft & Bansler, 1994; Hirschheim et al., 1997; Iivari & Hirschheim, 1996; Kyng, 1998; Robertson, 1998; Spinuzzi, 2002). Related to this discussion, one can argue that the reflective PD discourse in which the participatory and cooperative nature of the design process is highlighted clearly bases its argument on the current cooperative design tradition, and in this discourse political issues have decreased importance. On the other hand, in some studies in IS literature, the political issue clearly endures. First, studies criticizing user involvement only as a buzzword or a weapon (Beath & Orlikowski, 1994; Hirschheim & Newman, 1991; Howcroft & Wilson, 2003; Kirsch & Beath, 1996; Newman & Noble, 1990; Nielsen, 1999; Robey & Markus, 1984; Symon, 1998) can be interpreted to employ a critical stance. Many studies also highlight the influence of politics and conflicts in IT artifact development (Alvarez, 2002; Bansler & Bødker, 1993; Beck, 2002; Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995; Bødker, 1996; Gärtner & Wagner, 1996;



Hirschheim & Klein, 1994; Howcroft & Wilson, 2003; Kirsch & Beath, 1996; Newman & Noble, 1990, Nielsen, 1999; Sarkkinen & Karsten, 2005; Symon, 1998). Of these studies, some have adopted a clearly trade unionist, management-hostile position (Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995; Gärtner & Wagner, 1996; Howcroft & Wilson, 2003). Related to this, it is also argued that IS researchers, instead of defining better IT artifact development methodologies and accepting the managerialist agendas of IT artifact development, should carefully analyze this conflictual and political context and question the agendas (Howcroft & Wilson, 2003). One should focus on dominance, power, marginality and exclusions both in IT artifact development and use (Beck, 2002). This discourse is labeled as a critical IS discourse, in which the speaker is positioned as a warrior, partisan or emancipator (Hirschheim & Klein, 1989) fighting on the side of the oppressed against the oppressors. Workers are viewed as oppressed and in need of emancipation. Usability specialists are offered no position within this discourse, since users need to be active agents in the design process, having power to make decisions regarding the design solution (Damodaran, 1996). They are not to be “represented.” Altogether, this discourse clearly relies on a critical tradition; conflict between capital and labor and emancipation of the workers is emphasized (c.f., Asaro, 2000; Hirschheim & Klein, 1989; Spinuzzi, 2002). However, in this literature, the target of criticism is not HCI, but IS literature (as well as apolitical PD); traditional systems development methodologies (“prescriptive IS literature”) relying on functionalist paradigm (Hirschheim & Klein, 1989; Kirsch & Beath, 1996) as well as capitalist approaches and methods claiming to involve or empower users/workers popular especially in North America (Asaro, 2000; Bansler & Craft, 1994; Beck, 2002; Beath & Orlikowski, 1994; Carmel et al., 1993; Hirschheim & Newman, 1991; Kraft & Bansler, 1994; Kyng, 1998; Robertson, 1998; Spinuzzi, 2002) are under

attack. They are accused of being apolitical, neglecting the role of conflict and only serving management goals (Asaro, 2000; Bansler & Bødker, 1993; Beck, 2002; Beath & Orlikowski, 1994; Bjerknes & Bratteteig, 1995; Hirschheim & Newman, 1991; Howcroft & Wilson, 2003; Finken, 2003; Kirsch & Beath, 1996; Newman & Noble, 1990; Spinuzzi, 2002). This section identified three academic discourses on user involvement: a practical HCI discourse, reflective PD discourse and critical IS discourse. The practical HCI discourse is discussed in detail, since the empirical part of this paper focuses on user involvement in the product development context, and user involvement in this context is “mainstream HCI usability work.” The critical IS discourse, on the other hand, provides an interesting contrast to the practical HCI discourse identified. Finally, the reflective PD discourse can be argued as “building a bridge” between the academic communities of IS and HCI, since in both communities extensive interest in PD emerged during the 1990s and abundant references to PD have been made. However, the list of discourses on user involvement is by no means exhaustive; there is a multitude of discourses on user involvement to be identified in both HCI and IS literature. Nevertheless, these discourses all construct user involvement in coherent and yet divergent manners—there is a set of rules defining what is legitimate to say about user involvement within each discourse. Furthermore, the discourses offer distinct subject positions for the speakers (HCI and IS researchers) and the listeners (users, usability specialists and designers). However, it needs to be remembered that discourses are always fluid—“their edges are not demarcated and the researchers do not cluster around a prototype, but instead gather at the crossroads” (Deetz, 1996, p. 199). Next, while discourses on user involvement are reviewed in a set of IT artifact product development organizations, they are also contrasted with the discourse on user involvement identified in this section.



RESEARCH DESIGN Research Approach

In the empirical part, a case study method is utilized to examine “a phenomenon in its natural setting, employing multiple methods of data collection to gather information from one or a few entities (people, groups or organizations). The boundaries of the phenomenon are not clearly evident at the outset of the research and no experimental control or manipulation is used” (Benbasat et al., 1987, p. 370). This method is recommended if little is known about the investigated phenomenon or current perspectives have little empirical evidence, conflict with each other or with common sense (Eisenhardt, 1989). Related to user involvement in the product development context, the challenging nature and the lack of empirical studies have already been brought up. More specifically, this research effort is an interpretive case study in which we assume that our knowledge of the world is gained through social constructions, and we attempt to understand and make sense, not explain in the predictive sense. The focus is on meanings attached to the studied phenomenon. Theories are used only as sensitizing devices (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Klein & Myers, 1999; Walsham, 1995). An interpretive case study method, thus, is suitable for studying how user involvement is constructed in the challenging and currently empirically weakly explored product development context. This is needed also since it has been shown that a variety of meanings can be associated with user involvement in practice. Therefore, in focus are the meanings attached to user involvement in the discourses, in which the organizational members participate and contribute. Furthermore, the focus on discourses emphasizes that this research is not about “true facts” about what user involvement is, how it is carried out and why it is carried out, but about critically analyzing and revealing how “truths” are constructed in the cases. The adopted epistemological stance is labeled as “weak social constructivism.” Social constructivism rejects

a naive realist view of representation “that assumes meanings” are fixed entities that can be discovered. ”A weak version assumes that there might still be better and worse interpretations, but a strong version rejects even that, maintaining that “truth” is always produced by particular interpreters and should always be analyzed with suspicion (Schwandt, 2000, pp. 197-200). I view the empirical material to represent a process of reality construction. Then, the material is not assumed to “tell the truth,” but it tells how the “natives” are trying and willing to represent “their truth.” However, I don’t go far in reflecting on my role as a producer of these results (truths) and as an interpreter with particular biases. Therefore, the label “weak” is needed.

Case Description

The cases are four product development units (case units A-D) from four IT artifact development companies. Units A and D are organizational units of large global corporations, units B and C of small- to medium-size enterprises (SMEs). Access to the units was gained though a research project about facilitating usability work in IT artifact development organizations in which the units participated. The units all had a strong background in usability work and/or an interest in facilitating it. Unit A has “a few years” background in usability work. There are four usability specialists in the unit. Usability work in unit B has been part of development for more than 10 years. There was a group of usability specialists in the unit, but only one was left at the time of the study. Unit C has very little background in usability work. There is one usability specialist in the unit. She has carried out usability work mainly as student work. Finally, usability work in unit D has been in a central position since the establishment of the unit. There is a group of professional, experienced usability specialists in the unit. The cases were chosen for theoretical reasons to provide examples of polar types in the sense that units A and D are parts of large, global corporations, while units B and C are parts



of small IT artifact development companies. In addition, the units’ backgrounds in usability work clearly differed, from more than 10 years (B) to only a couple of years (A) to almost no experience at all (C). The practical ways of involving the users resembled the consultative and informative types in all the case units. The users did not participate nor did they have decision-making power in the design process. The usability specialists “represented them in development.” The usability specialists had carried out customer visits (interviewed and observed the users) and evaluated design solutions by using methods such as laboratory usability testing, paper prototyping and different kinds of usability inspection methods. Users were involved as providers of information and objects of observation (c.f., Bannon, 1991).

Data Gathering

The research material was gathered over a period of 3 years. Process data related to usability work was continuously gathered. Process data refers to the “stories about what happened and who did what when—that is, events, activities and choices ordered over time” (Langley, 1999, p. 692). The material was gathered while conducting process assessments in the units and while supporting the units in the facilitation of usability work by offering workshops and training. In the process assessments, units’ personnel were interviewed about their ways of working in a selected project, and it was examined whether usability work was carried out in the projects. The research team also had regular meetings with the personnel. The minutes of the meetings, assessment reports and all e-mail correspondence were saved for the purposes of research. The research team also kept field notes after each joint event. In addition, contextual data was gathered from the units. We experimented with multiple methods for data gathering to gain grounded insights and to clarify the meanings attached to the phenomenon studied (Benbasat et al., 1987; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Eisenhardt, 1989). First, we experimented with organizational cul-

ture surveys and gathered quantitative data from the units. Afterwards, we interviewed personnel and gathered feedback from survey results. We interviewed both the usability specialists and people whose work is directly related to the units’ core mission. In the interviews, we discussed the context for and the process of usability work. An interview results report was produced. Afterwards, we organized workshop sessions in which we discussed and evaluated the interview results. The results report was updated after the sessions. Finally, we organized additional workshop sessions in which the results gained through the different techniques for data gathering were compared and contrasted with the results of the other units. In addition, before the workshop sessions, we went through all the memos, e-mails, field notes and assessment reports produced. From this material we listed all usability activities carried out in the units, all reported problems related to the activities and all preferences expressed for future actions. We presented this material to allow the participants to also comment on that material. Therefore, the technique of member checking was utilized extensively. Data gathering related to the case units is summarized in Table 1.

Data Analysis

Analysis of qualitative data is a difficult and not much codified phase in interpretive research. Qualitative research that imitates the positivist tradition aims to make qualitative research rigorous; and formalized, rigorous qualitative methodologies have been defined. However, interpretive research seeks for emic meanings held by the people within the cases studied. Researchers typically have a large amount of qualitative data that is not mechanically manipulable. In addition, analysis is always a creative process: The insights and imagination of the researcher are always needed (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Eisenhardt, 1989; Klein & Myers, 1999; Langley, 1999; Walsham, 1995). Altogether, interpretive practice is always artistic, political and creative (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). However, interpretive research also aims at generalizations and abstractions.



Table 1. Summary of data gathering and case units Unit

Process Data

Contextual Data

Description of the Unit

A

Process assessment documentation, unit’s internal documentation, memos and e-mails, field notes, interviews

Organizational culture surveys, interviews, workshop 1, workshop 2

IT artifact product development unit of a large global corporation, a few years’ background in usability work

B



IT artifact product development unit of a SME, background in usability work for more than 10 years

C


Organizational culture surveys

IT artifact product development unit of a SME, very little background in usability work

D

Process assessment documentation, unit’s internal documentation, memos and e-mails, field notes


IT artifact product development unit of a large global corporation, many years’ background in usability work

It is argued that the particularities in empirical data should be related to more abstract categories and concepts (Klein & Myers, 1999). Generalizations in interpretive research can be of different types, but generally one can state that they are “explanations of particular phenomena derived from empirical interpretive research in specific … settings, which may be valuable in the future in other organizations and settings” (Walsham, 1995, p. 79). Regarding data analysis in this research effort, I viewed the material as discourses adopted, adapted, produced and reproduced by the personnel of the case units. I searched for recurrent themes in the material—on the level of language use—related to usability work, paying special attention to who says what, why and when. We critically examined the material over and over again to reveal the construction of meanings related to the usability work in each unit. The focus was on systematic ways of language use related to usability work, as

well as on subject positions occupied by the speakers that constitute the speakers as subjects “of a certain kind” in relation to usability work. Afterwards, similarities and differences in language use were identified between the cases. Altogether, the systematic ways of language use and the associated subject positions emerged from the empirical material after several rounds of reading through the material.

DISCOURSES ON USER INVOLVEMENT: IN INDUSTRY Usability Work as a Tradition

First of all, it was evident that all the case units emphasized that “taking the users into account” is important. In unit A, the manager has strongly emphasized this, as in other units, also: When 2 years ago I went to (another) unit to present myself, they asked me how many us-



ability people there is in our unit. I said 20; the whole team. (Laughing) They started crying in the (other) team. … I don’t even doubt; I’m sure our group has a positive attitude towards this job. (Manager, A) The path has been smoothed a lot probably because management has had such a positive attitude and has marketed this thing (usability work). (Usability specialist, A) Unit B is positioned as a “pioneer” in usability work by the management: From the viewpoint of the image of the company, one of our goals is to be a pioneer. (Executive, B) This is visible also in the way the usability issues have been acknowledged. We were the first ones who started it. It’s not only related to the technology. (Manager, B) Also unit C is argued as having “this kind of culture”: Our products are easy to use from the point of view of the users. So it (user-centeredness) has been there, even though not systematically. … We have tested, not usability, but similar kinds of things. We have had these; representatives of customers have gone through these and thought about these issues. And ergonomics and things like that have been a starting point for industrial design. It is a kind of culture in this firm. (Manager, C) Finally, usability work is positioned as “our bread and butter” in unit D: We have this general rule that the specification is to be carried out by using user-centered methods. … This should be our bread and butter, user-centered design methods and usability. (Usability specialist, D) The whole unit should have it as a kind of guiding light (usability as our bread and butter) that

directs all our efforts. (Project manager, D) Management in all the case units highlights the importance of usability work; that is, they are positioned as friendly allies that appreciate usability work. This discourse illustrates that in the case units, the importance of “usable products” and user orientation have been acknowledged—as is the case also in HCI literature, in which “the rhetoric on representing the user,” as mentioned, has been crucial as a whole for the legitimacy and identity of the field (Cooper & Bowers, 1995). However, the critical IS discourse warns us that user involvement might be used only as a slogan or buzzword (e.g., Catarci et al., 2002; Hirschheim & Newman, 1991; Kirsch & Beath, 1996; Nielsen, 1999; Symon, 1998; Tudor, 1998). From this viewpoint, this discourse can be suspected of being only rhetoric without any aim to actually involve the users. However, next we will review arguments that offer motives for assigning usability work such a central position.

Usability Work as an Image Factor and a Selling Argument

Within the second discourse, meanings influenced by a clearly business-oriented viewpoint are assigned to usability work. Usability work is deemed useful since it can be used as an image factor and a selling argument—it can be used to address and manipulate the customer. In unit B, both the usability specialists and managers acknowledge this: I think [user-centeredness] has been a selling argument and a thing that we have had, but not necessarily the competitors. We have been most progressive in this respect. (Team leader, B) If we talk about our strengths as a company, we don’t talk only about customer-centeredness, but we say we have this competence; we have behavioral scientists, research and cooperation with universities. … Because this is quite exceptional. (Executive, B) This applies also in unit C:



Eric (manager) told me the basic reasons why we would participate [in the facilitation of usability work]. We need to be more convincing in the eyes of the customer. That way, we could dictate some things, for example UI(user interface) issues. The project would offer facts which could enable us to do that. … Improvement of our company’s image is one of the main reasons why we participate in this project. (Usability specialist, C) Customers do not know what is good for them. The company has to convince the customers that the company knows better. One way to do that is to appeal to the fact that the company participates in the university project dealing with usability issues. This might give authority to the company in relation to the customer. (Field notes, C) Also in IS literature, user involvement has been constructed as useful in overcoming resistance and ensuring acceptance (Nandhakumar & Jones, 1997)—the customers as well as the users need to be convinced that the “company knows better.” Within this discourse, the capitalist management orientation is evident: Profit maximization and a competitive advantage achievable through user involvement (Asaro, 2000; Spinuzzi, 2002) are highlighted. Related to this, this discourse can be criticized as a “realization of Scandinavians’ worst fears” (Spinuzzi, 2002), since the original aim of user involvement—democratic empowerment of the oppressed worker (Clement, 1994)—is totally missing. On the other hand, the practical HCI discourse clearly advocates this kind of discourse while emphasizing the business benefits achievable through usability work (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Cooper, 1999; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Rosenbaum et al., 2000). From the managerial point of view, this seems to be a tempting discourse on usability work, positioning the speaker as a “business and profit-oriented utilizer of usability work.” From the usability specialists’ viewpoint, on the other hand, this can be seen as a discourse to

utilize as a change agent, “selling usability work into the development organization” (Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a; Rosenbaum et al., 2000). However, one can also criticize this discourse as being mere rhetoric without any aim to actually involve the users. The usability specialists of unit B acknowledge this risk: I admit that it is valued here—my and Ellen’s (both former usability specialists) work is valued in this firm—but it is like: ‘it’s enough that you are here (laugh).’ It is like mere talk was enough. (Team leader, B) The fact that the team (of usability specialists and graphical designers) existed created an illusion that usability issues are taken care of. There were people who took care of these issues and had knowledge about these issues, but the knowledge didn’t necessarily have any contact with the end product or how it was developed. (Graphical designer, B) Also, the usability specialists of unit D discuss the risk of usability work becoming only a useful managerial buzzword: We have been wondering about this, about this bragging related to user-centeredness, because it isn’t realized in every project. (Usability specialist, D) “Total user experience”or other fancy keywords like that are used, but the question is: How are we going to achieve them? How do we prove that the outputs are like that? … There is no monitoring of whether we produce quality designs or fancy total user experiences (laugh), whatever that means. (Usability specialist, D)

Usability Work as a Waste of Time and Money

The discourses do not necessarily glorify usability work. In some case units, some personnel have adopted a very negative standpoint related to usability work. In unit A, usability



work is positioned as contributing merely to the “finishing touch,” involving “useless speculation”:

Yes, delayers who fuss over minor issues and pay attention to irrelevant issues. (Project manager, D)

Projects always have limited resources and one must decide whether to invest in the finishing touch [usability] or in bugs and functionality. (Designer, A)

Altogether, within this discourse usability work is condemned to be inefficient and timeconsuming. This is quite alarming, and apparently a problem acknowledged also by the HCI community, since the practical HCI discourse warns that one should assure that usability work does not increase development costs and time (Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Nielsen, 1993), and cost-benefit tradeoffs may play a major role in the adoption of usability work (Mayhew, 1999b; Nielsen, 1993; Vredenburg et al., 2002). Financial issues, particularly, are brought up as hindering usability work:

Yes, sure, sometimes it feels like the usability issues become kind of useless speculation. … Sometimes usability work is overemphasized. If we are in a hurry, it might be that we don’t have time for these speculations. (Designer, A) Also, in unit C usability work has been criticized as useless, since it is time-consuming and incapable of producing concrete, visible results: Of the cooperation, Pete [designer] mentions that as a result something concrete and visible needs to appear. Usability activities have not resulted in that so far. (Field Notes, C) Our designers considered usability work as useless. (Usability specialist, C) Rick [manager] again suspects the suitability of user-centered design. Last time he raised doubts about whether the requirement specifications (produced by a usability team) are complete: Have all exceptions and requirements been taken into account? Now he argues that paper prototyping seems to have too many loops and users; when can you stop? (Field Notes, C) Finally, in unit D, usability work has been condemned “burdensome, delaying and dull”: There is some unwillingness to carry out usability tests, because usability activities are perceived to be burdensome and dull. (Usability specialist, D) [Usability specialists are perceived as] kind of delayers. (Graphic designer, D)

It is problematic to get money and the permission from the projects to do this, it’s not easy to get permission to spend money on doing usability. (Manager, A) Another important issue is that one should be able to show the benefits achieved (Cooper, 1999; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Rosenbaum et al., 2000). Unit C especially has placed strong emphasis on concrete results and on money spent in achieving them: The company is expecting some concrete advantages [from usability work] to appear. … The product should be more usable, and there should be clear savings in money and an increase in sales. (Manager, C) When we were making the budget for this year, the question was, ‘why spend resources on this [usability work]?’ It costs money when people participate in this; they spend time on that. What can you get out of this? … This type of questioning exists and it is good, because it all comes down to money and resources. We have limited resources and must have clear arguments. (Manager, C) In this particular case, the financial reasons eventually led the organization to even abandon



usability work: When compared to the costs, one can raise a question that what has been received? The company has spent much more money on UI design than what was planned. … Eric [manager] says the company has moved backwards: In the beginning, this [usability work] was a big thing, but now the situation is that soon nothing is done. Eric asks Rick [manager]: Has usability become a curse word? (Field Notes, C) According to Eric, Rick has decided that no user-centered design activities will be carried out in the new product development project. … Due to the bad reputation it currently has, the term ‘usability’ will not be mentioned for a while. (Field Notes, C) The personnel responsible for IT artifact development—the designers and their managers—position themselves as sceptics in relation to usability work, condemning it as useless unless proven otherwise. The arguments of the practical HCI discourse highlighting the importance of designers’ and managers’ “buy in” (Aucella, 1997; Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a; Rosenbaum et al., 2000) can also be read as an implicit fear of the existence of this discourse.

Usability Work as a Controllable and Measurable Quality Improvement

However, insofar as usability work is viewed as useful, it can still be constructed by relying on different kinds of discourses. One possibility is to adopt a discourse that constructs usability work as a controllable, measurable quality improvement effort that should and could be treated like other large-scale quality improvement efforts in organizations. This was the case in unit A, in which it is assumed that usability work should be carried out by “controlling projects to do quality work.” As mentioned, in unit A, “it is problematic to get money and permission from the projects to spend money on doing usability.” The discussion proceeded as follows:

Yes, if we think of these things separately. But if we think of it from the viewpoint of our everyday job, the question is that do we get permission to do quality work (laugh)? (Usability specialist, A) Yes, do they allow us to stop the projects from wasting their time and effort (laughing)? … I don’t think that in the long run usability work costs a lot in the projects. (Manager, A) “Doing usability” refers to “doing quality work” that stops projects from “wasting their time and effort.” This discourse postulates usability work as improving the design process (Nandhakumar & Jones, 1997)—as improving the quality of the process and the product. Furthermore, it is assumed that controlling and monitoring is needed: When you bring usability orientation into an organization, you have to be a police in the beginning. The designers don’t have the knowledge needed in their head, and you have to act as a police. (Usability specialist, A) Here we have a quality organization which perceives quality within a rules-oriented approach. Numerical things are highlighted; bugs and stuff like that. We have quality plans and we report the bugs and follow the projects. … We have these control mechanisms, and they are very powerful. If you try to compete with them, and you are not in the control mechanisms, then you are left out. Because these control mechanisms set the pressures. (Usability specialist, A) Controlling, constant controlling and monitoring, it’s part of normal project work. Maybe it comes from there, the monitoring. I don’t know whether you think this way, but if the usability work can be measured and controlled, then it’s more natural, then it’s just part of your job. (Team leader, A) The usability specialists have labeled themselves as a “mommy mob”7 (Usability



specialist, A) reflecting their will to control “the projects to do quality work.” Also in unit D, the usability specialists position usability work as “doing quality work” and, more specifically, “real research”:

1997; Mayhew, 1999a) are recommended. In unit A, a software process model with usability work included has been produced and is deemed helpful in integrating usability work into “normal project work”:

We should have more research orientation and quality. Related to quality, the workers and the [usability] specialists have started demanding that it should be monitored and there should be orderliness. We have also made proposals with other specialists, related to the ways we should work here. (Usability specialist, D)

Now, when the new process is being implemented, now those [usability activities] are planned, and then you have permission to do them and time to do them. They are included in the schedules. (Team leader, A)

If we design, we should do it in some rational way. … I think we should be able to produce something rational, carry out relevant research through which we could say: ‘Yes, this is how it goes.’ We should produce something new and verifiable. (Usability specialist, D) A project manager states that the projects should always be able to state that “we had real users involved in this, there is real research in the background, these relations are correct” (Project manager, D). Related to this, controlling and monitoring are necessary, since: If [usability work] is not demanded, guess what happens? People don’t do it, because it is too burdensome. Why would people do things in a difficult, burdensome way if they can do it more easily? (Usability specialist, D) Our managers should say that it is stated in our strategies that in the future we will carry out these kinds of initiatives and our competence in usability should be on a high level. And now we will together to start to fix it. (Project manager, D) Within this discourse, written work descriptions are seen as useful, as is also suggested by the practical HCI discourse: Documentation of best practices (Aucella, 1997), a description of the methods and techniques for usability work (Fellenz, 1997) and a formal development process with usability work included (Fellenz,

Also in unit D, the specialists, as mentioned, have produced “proposals related to ways of working in the unit.” This discourse was evident in units A and D. These units are parts of large, global corporations. In unit A, not only the usability specialists, but also the designers and managers, participated in it. However, in unit D the situation is different. The usability specialists were the only ones postulating usability work this way. Furthermore, they seemed to utilize this discourse in positioning the other stakeholder groups—designers and managers—in a morally subordinate position; managers are postulated as “not demanding enough,“ designers as “careless” and “having no arguments behind their decisions”: Management has not understood to demand quality which, together with the lowering of the competence level, has resulted in degradation of usability. (Usability specialist, D) In some [projects] there are ‘staid researchers,’ research-oriented people, and in some other projects there are these ‘careless designers.’ … This ‘research gang’ questions existing things and wants to examine things. On the other hand, these designers like to do things that are fun. They don’t have, like, arguments, behind their decisions. (Usability specialist, D)

Usability Work Through Persuading, Marketing and Manipulating

Finally, this discourse on usability work is distinctive in its view of usability work as



a phenomenon that should be sold to the IT artifact development preferably by “sneaking in, in secret.” This discourse, as well as the previous one, positions usability specialists as the ones “empowering the designers,” but these discourses attach clearly divergent meanings to this “empowering.” In the former discourse, usability work was constructed as “controlling and monitoring,” while in the latter discourse usability work means “sneaking in, in secret.” This can be accomplished, for example, through the usability specialists employing influential positions: I think it is very important from the point of view of user-centeredness that our manager is a usability specialist, that there is this kind of competence. We can avoid a lot of unnecessary work, because our manager makes the decisions. We can trust her; we don’t have to question her decisions. … This user-centered viewpoint kind of affects other things in secret. I think it is strategically very important that a usability specialist was nominated as a manager who can make the decisions regarding the product. (Team leader, B) Within this discourse, usability specialists act as change agents who address many different target groups and tailor their message to languages that each target audience understands (Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a; Rosenbaum et al., 2000): [Knowledge of user-centeredness] spreads through my and Ellen’s [both former usability specialists] personalities, what we are able to tell about it. We forcefully talk about user-centeredness when [sales and marketing] want to hear what we do. (Team leader, B) Here the discussions between development and marketing, they happen through me [former usability specialist]. The designers don’t discuss directly with marketing and marketing doesn’t contact the designers directly. I function as a mediator. (Manager, B)

However, designers are postulated as the most important target group (Aucella, 1997; Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a) who should buy in to usability and perceive usability specialists as allies (Aucella, 1997; Fellenz, 1997; Mayhew, 1999a; Rosenbaum et al., 2000): This is not only a few people’s job, but everyone should understand what user-centeredness means and how much should I apply those principles and in which part of my job. … I think it is better that everyone knows a little about it rather than us having a dozen usability specialists and rest of the personnel know nothing about it; because this situation is a battlefield. Or, there should be a designer and a usability specialist doing things together all the time. But in this situation, the designer becomes a usability specialist almost naturally. (Team leader, B) Doing things together is the most effective way to teach. It is much more efficient than to produce fancy guidelines for how things ought to be done, at least for part of our personnel. Some people might be good in following written work descriptions, but they are quite rare here. (Manager, B) It is argued that “representing the user” is accomplished through the usability specialists actively cooperating with the designers, who otherwise might ignore the results of usability work. In this quest, the controlling and monitoring strategy is condemned as ineffective. Only the personnel from case unit B participated in this discourse, and even in this unit it was only the usability specialists who participated in it. This is quite natural, since the aim is to “sneak in, in secret.” However, personnel from units A and D are familiar with this discourse, but they could not offer a success story related to it. In unit A, there is a “long way to go”: “If we aim at all our designers actively carrying out usability work in projects, we still have a long way to go” (Manager, A). Re-



Table 2. Summary of the discourses on usability work in the case units Usability work as…

Unit A

Unit B

Unit C

Unit D

Tradition

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Selling argument and image factor Waste of time and money

x

Controllable and measurable quality improvement program

x

x

Persuading, marketing, manipulating Usability specialists as …

x Controlling mommy mob

garding addressing other organizational units, short lectures have been given by the usability specialists, but it is maintained that “this work is extremely painful and a persevering job. You must proceed slowly and take small steps. You can’t change the direction of a ship of this size very fast” (Manager, A). In unit D it is maintained that if “usability is everybody”s responsibility, then it’s nobody’s responsibility: Our boss wants us all to be usability people, that there lives inside us all a small usability specialist. … But then it is nobody’s responsibility. It is everybody’s responsibility and, therefore, nobody’s responsibility. (Usability specialist, D) Furthermore, the usability specialists are not keen on the idea of selling their work inside their organization: All work we do should be marketable inside our company. … Management says: Go and sell your work. But they are sitting in the ivory tower, from which it is much easier to see where to sell it. … In practice, when you present your work to [other units in the company], they don’t care whether you have used [a UCD method] or just invented everything. … It is a big effort to sell this work to people who don’t understand it. Very rare people even bother to find out what

Seductive change agents

–

Demanding staid researchers

[a UCD method] means in practice. (Project manager, D) Therefore, this discourse was adopted only in unit B. Nevertheless, this discourse has a clear resemblance to the practical HCI discourse. The manipulative, seductive strategy has already been recommended—the ones introducing usability work should act as change agents and seduce and manipulate other people to “buy into usability” (Billingsley, 1995; Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Bloomer & Croft, 1997; Cooper, 1999; Hutchings & Knox, 1995; Mayhew, 1999a, 1999b; Rosenbaum et al., 2000; Rosson & Carroll, 2002). However, only in unit B do the usability specialists maintain having succeeded in this quest.

DISCUSSION Summary of the Results

This paper has examined discourses on usability work in IT artifact product development organizations. Through analysis of empirical, qualitative material, five discourses on usability work were identified. The discourses construct usability work and the position of usability specialists in different ways in the case units. The differences are summarized by mapping the discourses on usability work identified with the particular units in which they emerged, as illustrated in Table 2.



The usability specialists in unit A employ the position of a controlling “mommy mob” “fighting for the user”; the designers have condemned usability work as a waste of time and money, but at the same time, the controlling, monitoring, measuring approach to usability work is accepted as a working solution. The usability specialists in unit B are positioned as seductive change agents “sneaking in, in secret.” The uses of usability work as an image factor and a selling argument are acknowledged, granting usability work some legitimacy—especially at the executive level. However, subtle ways of working are needed in this unit to influence and manipulate a multitude of stakeholder groups to “buy into usability”. Also in unit C, usability work is appreciated as a selling argument and an image factor, but the discourse of the personnel responsible for technical development overrode in this context, and “usability became a curse word”. Therefore, usability specialists currently employ no position in this unit. Finally, the usability specialists in unit D are positioned as “staid researchers demanding more quality and control.” Also in this unit, usability work is utilized as a managerial tool for improving the image of the unit. In addition, designers are a hindering stakeholder group condemning usability work as a waste of time and money. In unit D, however, the usability specialists offer the “careless designers” and “not demanding enough managers” a morally subordinate position. This observation may be related to the notion of power, a prominent theme in Foucault’s writings. The designers in case units A, C and D utilize a discourse constituting usability work as a waste of time and money. In unit A, a controlling and monitoring strategy is, nevertheless, accepted as a working solution, but in unit C, the usability specialists clearly have “lost the battle.” All in all, one could argue that the discourses the usability specialists utilize are typically submissive, figuring out ways and strategies for involving (empowering) the designers, who do the “real work here” (Manager, A) and whose contribution is “always needed” (Team leader, B).

If you think of the personnel of our unit, we have SW(software) developers who think that the SW development is the only real job in here. Even our respected usability specialist thinks this way, not to speak of our manager. (Manager, A) In unit D, however, the usability specialists offer the “careless designers” and “not demanding enough managers” a morally subordinate position. The notion of “usability work as bread and butter” grants the usability specialists an influential position in this unit. Nevertheless, except for unit D, one could argue that the usability specialists do not seem to employ very influential positions in the IT artifact development and are, due to this, also in desperate need of “rhetoric on representing the user that legitimizes their existence.”

Relationship to Academic Discourses

It was argued that these discourses can be related to wider discursive fields in which both the HCI and IS communities participate and contribute. As mentioned, existing literature has made us aware that user involvement might be used only as a buzzword and a slogan (e.g.,Catarci et al., 2002; Hirschheim & Newman, 1991; Kirsch & Beath, 1996; Nielsen, 1999; O’Connor 1995). The first discourse assigning usability work a central position in every case unit might be viewed as relating to the same phenomenon. Furthermore, the other identified discourses indicate that this important position has not been fully realized. Especially the second discourse—which constructs usability work as useful, since it can be used as an image factor and a selling argument—warns us that within this discourse the management goals may be the main (sole?) motivator for usability work. Usability work is useful for the company in making more profit and improving the image of the company. Furthermore, the third discourse that condemns usability work as a mere waste of time and money implies that this “tradition of user-centeredness”—even though highlighted by the management—is not very strong. The designers are unwilling



Table 3. Subject positions of the practical HCI discourse in the case units Usability specialist as …

Unit A

Unit B

Unit D

User surrogate representing the user

x

x

x

User surrogate involving the designer • Controlling and monitoring the designer • Seducing the designer User surrogate as change agent targeting, manipulating and involving marketing, sales, management and so forth

to accept usability work, and the benefits of usability work must be realized before it will be accepted. The financial reasons had led one unit to even abandon usability work. The fourth and fifth discourses, however, illustrate that in the other three case units usability work has survived further. These discourses show, nevertheless, that it can be postulated in different ways. Usability can be constructed as a measurable, controllable quality criterion that should be aimed at through the usability specialists—acting as policemen—controlling and monitoring the projects “to do quality work.” In this case,the focus is on the quality of both the process and the product. On the other hand, usability work can also be viewed as a phenomenon to be sneaked in, in secret. The designers are seen as an important target group and they are supposed to become “usability specialists” “in secret,” by “doing things together” with the usability specialists. The usability specialists should also aim at employing influential positions in their units for their competence to also be “sneaked in, in secret” and so they can “sell usability” to a multitude of target groups in their company. Altogether, these discourses on usability work bear a clear resemblance to the practical HCI discourse identified earlier. Within the discourses, user involvement is constituted as indirect, and usability specialists are offered a subject position of a user surrogate representing (if not fighting for) the users in development. However, the case units differ in terms of other subject positions offered to these user surrogates. They might also be positioned as

x

x

x

x

change agents involving a multitude of other stakeholder groups (designers, managers, marketing, sales …) by seducing and manipulating them to “buy into usability” or as controlling and monitoring “prescribers” imposing guidelines and processes on development. In either case, the resemblance to the existing HCI discourse is still evident. The empirical findings are summarized next in relation to the subject positions offered to usability specialists in the practical HCI discourse (see Table 3). The reflective PD discourse, on the other hand, was argued as “building a bridge” between the academic communities of IS and HCI. In both communities, extensive interest in PD has emerged during the 1990s. Recent HCI textbooks advocating user involvement (e.g., Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Mayhew, 1999b; Rosson & Carroll, 2002) refer directly to PD literature and suggest more participative design. This reference to PD literature, however, has been criticized, since either PD is only mentioned, not actually expected (e.g., in Mayhew, 1999b), it is interpreted only as a technical method improving the design process (Carroll, 1996) or it is interpreted to refer merely to prototyping and, all in all, suggested merely to achieve management goals (especially Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998, according to Spinuzzi, 2002). Regarding this discourse in practice, the empirical results do not support the notion that “participative design” has been realized in industrial settings. Participative user involvement was not articulated in the discourses that the members of the case units participated in and contributed to.



Next, the critical IS discourse, relying on an ideal of democratic empowerment of the skilled worker and on the view of them as active agents in the design process, which is political and full of conflicts that need to be acknowledged, is contrasted with the discourses on usability work identified from empiria. In doing so, the results achieved within this study can be seen as very alarming. From the viewpoint of the critical IS discourse, some of the discourses on usability work can be interpreted to be in stark contrast with the original aim of user involvement. Within these discourses, the goal of usability work is expressed in terms that appeal to management; they highlight the money-making and money-saving aspects of usability work. Usability work is seen as helping the projects to “do quality work” and “get it right the first time”—usability work is constructed as useful for money-saving purposes. On the other hand, usability work is highlighted as a selling argument and image factor for making more profit. This discourse especially can be criticized for being overtly capitalist, and even labeled as a “misuse of user involvement.” The management goal of “convincing the customer” by appealing to usability work might even be viewed as a way of “silencing the users” (Asaro, 2000), instead of “giving them a voice.” Altogether, this type of capitalist orientation related to usability work identified in the product development context might be viewed as a “realization of Scandinavians” (trade unionists) worst fears (Spinuzzi, 2002), totally neglecting the original aim of user involvement; that is, democratic empowerment of oppressed workers. Related to this, it is also acknowledged that “empowerment” and “involvement” can be used only as rhetorical tools that try to conceal that IT artifacts are always developed to serve management goals. “Involvement” may actually mean exclusion and marginalization rather than empowerment of the ones who are oppressed (Howcroft & Wilson 2003, O’Connor 1995). Particularly when user “involvement” is only indirect, it is a question mark whether and how users could be “emancipated” or empowered in the democratic sense, even though these

user surrogates are “representing them in the development.” User involvement can also be criticized of only serving technological colonialism (Asaro, 2000). Just like anthropologists—who served the interests of colonial control while producing representations of other exotic, primitive cultures who were not able to contribute or argue against these authoritative representations (Clifford & Markus, 1986)—the designers (and the usability specialists) produce representations of users and at the same time serve the interests of technological colonialism: They represent the users for the sake of management goals—for the purposes of money making and money saving in the IT artifact development companies (c.f., Asaro, 2000). Furthermore, if users participate in the process, they are contributing to the production of these texts—the representations of themselves. From this viewpoint, user involvement can be seen as a way of silencing the users—users cannot reject the system anymore, since they have participated in the process. However, users are never equally equipped to produce these texts or to participate in the development, due to which the “technological elites”—like the anthropologists—ultimately have the authority to produce the representations of the technologically illiterate, “primitive,” “exotic” other (c.f., Asaro, 2000). In the case units, the users were not active participants who produced representations of themselves, due to which they were not “silenced” in this sense. However, in one case unit, the designers were not producing representations of the users either and even refused to take into account the representations produced by the usability specialists. Management, nevertheless, was “silencing the users” (and the customers) by appealing to usability work.

Relevance to Practice

This type of critical studies can be argued to lack relevance to practice, which seems to be a very important goal in both IS and HCI research. However, as a defense for this type of studies, one might argue that relevance can be achieved in many ways. For example, research-



ers can act as the conscience of society (Lee, 1999), and they can reshape the practitioners’ thinking and actions in the longer perspective (Lyytinen, 1999)—also, these issues have been interpreted to be relevant to practice. Therefore, critical examinations of user involvement in IT artifact development should be considered useful in the sense of highlighting the risk of user involvement becoming only a buzzword and a slogan whose acceptance and utilization is totally dependant on short-term financial motivators. Related to this, the influential role of academic communities is also emphasized (Cooper & Bowers, 1995; Finken, 2003; Foucault, 1972; Weedon, 1987). It is recommended that the HCI community especially should carefully reflect on what kinds of discourses on user involvement it advocates and deems as legitimate. All in all, this paper provides help in answering questions such as, “What kind of animal is this (and should it be)?” related to research on “user involvement,” and “What kind of animal are you (and should you be)?,” which addresses both the researchers analyzing, advocating and prescribing user involvement in IT artifact development, and the practitioners developing IT artifacts, involving the users in development or being involved as users in development. The practitioners especially, who assume a subject position of a “user surrogate” “representing the user” in IT artifact development can reflect on the other subject positions offered to them. In the practical HCI discourse, these practitioners have also been positioned as “user surrogates,” monitoring and controlling or seducing and manipulating the designers, or as change agents selling usability work to a multitude of stakeholder groups in their organization. As an addition to these subject positions, the critical IS and reflective PD discourses provide alternative subject positions that, nevertheless, could be occupied by these “user surrogates,” those being a “warrior, partisan or emancipator fighting on the side of the users against the oppressors,” or a “reflective facilitator of cooperation among users and designers.”

Paths for Future Work

Altogether, it has been argued that especially in the IT artifact product development context, the ethical issues should eventually be acknowledged (Adam & Light, 2004). Therefore, regarding paths for future work, I would recommend studies that critically analyze literature on user involvement from the viewpoint of the ethical assumptions they advocate. In addition, studies that analyze our representational practices and articulations of our authority (c.f., Clifford & Markus, 1986) in the studies on user involvement are recommended. In this study, I have not reflected on these issues; that is, the reflection on my representational practices is lacking. This type of study could ask: Who has the authority to interpret user involvement in organizations? How is this authority articulated in the text? How does the writer’s voice situate and pervade the accounts? What is excluded, and are voices silenced? And finally: Why are these stories produced in the first place? On a more practical level, empirical studies on user involvement in the product development context are also recommended. Contextual factors affecting user involvement (and more particularly, usability work) should be examined. In addition, the voice of the users, a voice clearly silenced in this paper, should be heard also in the IT artifact product development context. Finally, studies that critically examine power, politics, marginality and exclusion (c.f., Beck 2002) in the IT artifact product development context are warmly recommended.

REFERENCES

Adam, A., & Light, B. (2004, June 14-16). Selling packaged software: An ethical analysis. Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2004), Turku, Finland. Alvarez, R. (2002). Confessions of an information worker: A critical analysis of information requirements discourse. Information and Organization, 12(2), 85-107. Anderson, W. L. & Crocca, W. T. (1993). Engineering practice and codevelopment of product prototypes. Communications of



the ACM, 36(4), 49-56. Asaro, P. M. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: The science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10, 257-290. Aucella. A. (1997). Ensuring success with usability engineering. Interactions, May & June. Bannon, L. (1991). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in system design. In Greenbaum & Kyng (Eds.), Design at work. Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bansler, J. (1989). Systems development research in Scandinavia: Three theoretical schools. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1, 3-20. Bansler, J. P., & Bødker, K. (1993). A reappraisal of structured analysis. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 11(2), 165-193. Bansler, J. P., & Kraft, P. (1994). Privilege and invisibility in the new work order: A reply to Kyng. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 6(1), 97-106. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1989). Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quarterly, 59-81. Beath, C., & Orlikowski, W. (1994). The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-user relationship in information engineering. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 350-377. Beck, E. E. (2002). P for political. Participation is not enough. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 77-92. Bekker, M. M. & Vermeeren, A. P. O. S. (1996). An analysis of user interface design projects: Information sources and constraints in design. Interacting with Computers, 8(1), 112-116. Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case study strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly,

September, 368-386. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3-16. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Bias, R., & Reitmeyer, P. (1995). Usability support inside and out. Interactions, April, 29-32. Billingsley, P. (1995). Starting from scratch: Building a usability program at Union Pacific Railroad. Interactions, October, 27-30. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1995). User participation and democracy. A discussion of Scandinavian research on system development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 73-98. Blomberg, J., & Henderson, A. (1990). Reflections on participatory design: Lessons from the Trillium experience. Proceedings of CHI90 (pp. 353-359). New York: ACM Press. Bloomer, S., & Croft, R. (1997). Pitching usability to your organization. Interactions, November & December, 18-26. Bloomfield, B., & Vurdubakis, T. (1997). Visions of organization and organizations of vision: The representational practices of information systems development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(7), 639-668. Boivie, I., Åborg, C., Persson, J., & Löfberg, M. (2003). Why usability gets lost or usability in in-house software development. Interacting with Computers, 15, 623-639. Borgholm, T., & Madsen, K. H. (1999). Cooperative usability practices. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 91-97. Brooke, C. (2002). What does it mean to be “critical” in IS research? Journal of Information Technology, 17, 49-57. Brun-Cottan, F., & Wall, P. (1995). Using video to re-present the user. Communications



of the ACM, 38(5), 61-71. Butler, K. A. (1996). Usability engineering turns 10. Interactions, January, 59-75. Buur, J., & Bagger, K. (1999). Replacing usability testing with user dialogue. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 63-66. Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources in systems development. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(3), 215-236. Bødker, S., & Buur, J. (2002). The design collaboratorium—A place for usability design. ACM Transactions on ComputerHuman Interaction, 9(2), 152-169. Bødker, S., & Iversen, O. (2002). Staging a professional participatory design practice. Moving PD beyond the initial fascination of user involvement. Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction (pp. 11-18). New York: ACM Press. Bødker, S., Nielsen, C., & Petersen, M. G. (2000). Creativity, cooperation and interactive design. Proceedings of DIS 2000, 252-261. Carmel, E., & Sawyer, S. (1998). Packaged software development teams: What makes them different. Information Technology & People, 11(1), 7-19. Carmel, E., Whitaker, R. D., & George, J. F. (1993). PD and joint application design: A transatlantic comparison. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 40-48. Carroll, J. M. (1996). Encountering others: Reciprocal openings in participatory design and user-centered design. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(3), 285-290. Catarci, T., Matarazzo, G., & Raiss, G. (2002). Driving usability into the public administration: The Italian experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 121-138. Cavaye, A. L. M. (1995). User participation in system development revisited. Information & Management, 28, 311-323. Clarke, R. (2001). Social semiotic contributions to the systemic semiotic workpractice framework. Sign Systems Studies, 29(2),

587-605. Clement, A. (1994). Computing at work: Empowering action by ‘low-level users.’ Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 52-63. Clement, A., & Van den Besselaar, P. (1993). A retrospective look at PD projects. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 29-37. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis: Sams. Cooper, C., & Bowers, J. (1995). Representing the users: Notes on the disciplinary rhetoric of human-computer interaction. In Peter J. Thomas (Ed.), The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces (pp 48-66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Damodaran, L. (1996). User involvement in the systems designs process—A practical guide for users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 15(16), 363-377. Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191-207. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Doolin, B. (1999, December 13-15) Information systems, power, and organizational relations: A case study. In P. De & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th international conference on information systems (pp. 286-290), Charlotte, NC. Edenius, M. (2002). Discourse on e-mail use. In E. H. Wynn, E. A. Whitley, M. D. Myers, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Global and organizational discourse about information



technology (pp. 73-89). Boston: Kluwer Academic. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258-284). London: Sage Publications. Fellenz, C. B. (1997). Introducing usability into smaller organizations. Interactions, September/October, 29-33. Finken, S. (2003). Discursive conditions of knowledge production within cooperative design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 15, 57-72. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality. Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, trans.). New York: Vintage Books. Gardner, J. (1999). Strengthening the focus on users’ working practices—Getting beyond traditional usability testing. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 79-82. Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300-311. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (Eds.) (1991). Design at work. Cooperative design of computer systems. Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work. Technology, work and organization. Cambridge: Polity Press. Grudin, J. (1991a). Interactive systems: Bridging the gaps between developers and users. IEEE Computer, 24(4), 59-69. Grudin, J. (1991b). Systematic sources of suboptimal interface design in large product development organizations. HumanComputer Interaction, 6, 147-196. Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development or-

ganizations. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 99-122). Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grudin, J. (1996). The organizational contexts of development and use. ACM Computing Surveys, 28(1), 169-171. Grønbak, K., Grudin, J., Bødker, S., & Bannon, L. (1993). Achieving cooperative system design: Shifting from a product to a process focus. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 79-98). Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gärtner, J., & Wagner, I. (1996). Mapping actors and agendas: Political frameworks of systems design and participation. HumanComputer Interaction, 11, 187-214. Hirschheim, R., Iivari, J., & Klein, H. (1997). A comparison of five alternative approaches to information systems development. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 5(1), 3-29. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199-1216. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. (1994). Realizing emancipatory principles in information systems development: The case for ETHICS. MIS Quarterly, March, 83-109. Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1991). Symbolism and information systems development: Myth metaphor and magic. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 29-62. Howcroft, D., & Wilson, M. (2003). Paradoxes of participatory practices: The Janus role of the systems developer. Information and Organization, 13, 1-24. Hutchings, A. F., & Knox, S. T. (1995). Creating products—Customer demand. Communications of the ACM, 38(5), 72-80. Iivari, J., & Hirschheim, R. (1996). Analyzing information systems development: A comparison and analysis of eight IS development approaches. Information Systems, 21(7), 551-575.



Karat, J. (1997). Evolving the scope of usercentered design. Communications of the ACM, 40(7), 33-38. Keil, M., & Carmel, E. (1995). Customer-developer links in software development. Communications of the ACM, 38(5), 33-44. Kirsch, L. J., & Beath, C. M. (1996). The enactments and consequences of token, shared, and compliant participation in information systems development. Accounting, Management, & Information Technologies, 6(4), 221-254. Klein, H. K. & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-94. Kraft, P., & Bansler, J. (1994). The collective resource approach: The Scandinavian experience. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 6(1), 71-84. Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), 1-16. Kyng, M. (1994). Scandinavian design: Users in product development. Proceedings of CHI 1994 (pp. 3-9). New York: ACM Press. Kyng, M. (1998). Users and computers: A contextual approach to design of computer artifacts. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1&2), 7-44. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710. Lee, A. S. (1999). Rigor and relevance in MIS research: Beyond the approach of positivism alone. MIS Quarterly, 23(1). Lyytinen, K. (1987). Different perspectives on information systems: Problems and solutions. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(1), 5-46. Lyytinen, K. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: On the relevance of practice in thinking of IS research. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 25-28. Löwgren, J. (1995). Applying design methodology to Software development. Proceed-

ings of Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ‘95) (pp. 87-95). New York: ACM Press. Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (1999). Design methodology and design practice. Interactions, January/February, 13-20. Markus, M. L., & Mao, Y. (2004). User participation in development and implementation — Updating an old, tired concept for today’s IS contexts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(11-12), 514-544. Mayhew, D. J. (1999a). Business: Strategic development of usability engineering function. Interactions, September-October, 27-34. Mayhew, D. J. (1999b). The usability engineering lifecycle: A practitioner’s handbook for user interface design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Mrazek, D., & Rafeld, M. (1992). Integrating human factors on a large scale: Product usability champions. Proceedings of CHI’92 (pp. 565-570). New York: ACM Press. Muller, M. J., & Carey, K. (2002). Design as a minority discipline in a software company: Toward requirements for a community of practice. Proceedings of CHI 2002, 1(1), 383-390. New York: ACM Press. Muller, M. J., & Czerwinski, M. (1999). Organizing usability work to fit the full product range. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 87-90. Mulligan, R. M., Altom, M. W., & Simkin, D. K. (1991). User interface design in the trenches: Some tips on shooting from the hip. Proceedings of CHI’91 (pp. 232236). New York: ACM Press. Nandhakumar, J., & Jones, M. (1997). Designing in the dark: The changing user-developer relationship in information systems development. Proceedings of ICIS 1997 (pp. 75-86). Newman, M., & Noble, F. (1990). User involvement as an interaction process: A case study. Information Systems Research,



1(1), 89-113. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic Press. Nielsen, S. (1999). Talking about change: An analysis of participative discourse amongst IT operations personnel. Proceedings of 10th Australasian conference on information systems, 691-702. O’Connor, E. (1995). Paradoxes of participation: Textual analysis and organizational change. Organization Studies, 16(5), 769-803. Orlikowski, W., & Iacano, C. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-134. Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 398-427. Poltrock, S., & Grudin, J. (1994). Organizational obstacles to interface design and development: Two participant-observer studies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1(1), 52-80. Robertson, T. (1998). Shoppers and tailors: Participative practices in small Australian design companies. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 205-221. Robey, D., & Markus, M. L. (1984). Rituals in information system design. MIS Quarterly, March, 5-15. Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J. A., & Humburg, J. (2000). A toolkit for strategic usability: Results from workshops, panels, and surveys. Proceedings of CHI 2000. CHI Letters, 2(1), 337-344. Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. (2002). Usability engineering: Scenario-based development of human-computer interaction. San Francisco: Morgan-Kaufman. Sarkkinen, J., & Karsten, H. (2005). Verbal and visual representations in task redesign: How different viewpoints enter into information systems design discussions. Information Systems Journal, 15(3), 181-211.

Sayer, K., & Harvey, L. (1997). Empowerment in business process reengineering: An ethnographic study of implementation discourse. In K. Kumar & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th international conference on information systems (pp. 427-440), Atlanta, GA. Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.) (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 41-78). Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seffah, A., & Andreevskaia, A. (2003, May 310). Empowering software engineers in human-centered design. Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, OR. Spinuzzi, C. (2002). A Scandinavian challenge, a US response: Methodological assumptions in Scandinavian and US prototyping approaches. Proceedings of SIGDOC 2002 (pp. 208-215). Stahl, B. C. (2004, August 6-8). Whose discourse? A comparison of the Foucauldian and Habermasian concepts of discourse in critical IS research. Proceedings of the 10th Americas Conference on Information Systems, (pp. 4329-4336), New York, NY. Symon, G. (1998). The work of IT system developers in context: An organizational case study. Human-Computer Interaction, 13(1), 37-71. Thompson, M. (2002). ICT, power, and development discourse: A critical analysis. In E. H. Wynn, E. A. Whitley, M. D. Myers, & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Global and organizational discourse about information technology (pp. 347-343). Boston: Kluwer. Thoresen, K. (1993). Principles in practice: Two cases of situated participatory



design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 271-288). Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tudor, L. (1998). Human factors: Does your management hear you? Interaction, January & February. Vredenburg, K. (1999). Increasing ease of use—Emphasizing organizational transformations, process integration, and method optimisation. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 67-71. Vredenburg, K., Mao, J, Smith, P.W. & Casey, T. (2002). A survey of user-centered design practice. In D. Wixon (Ed.), Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves (pp. 471-478). New York: ACM Press. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74-81. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Weedon, C. (2004). Identity and culture: Narratives of difference and belonging. New York: Open University Press.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Endnotes

The term involvement is preferred over participation, since participation is interpreted to refer exclusively to actual, direct participative activities (c.f., Hirschheim, 1985), while in the product development context user involvement is mainly indirect. IT artifacts are defined (Orlikowski &

Iacano, 2001) as “bundles of material and cultural properties packaged in some socially recognizable form, such as hardware and/or software” (p. 121). Another widely used tradition would have been the Habermasian tradition, but it has been argued that Foucauldian tradition focuses on “real discourses” and on critical examination of the formation of objects and “truths,” revealing hidden and tacit assumptions (Stahl, 2004), which is also the aim of this paper. The Habermasian tradition is well suited for “normative explication of the validity and acceptability of discourses” (Stahl, 2004, p. 4331) through the construct of “ideal speech situation.” The aim of this paper is not to identify the shortcoming of real speech situations in relation to “an ideal speech situation.” This description relies on the description of “feminist poststructuralism” outlined by Weedon (1987). Designer refers to the “legion of technical and analytical specialists who put together computer systems” (Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991, p. 20). In HCI, the traditional goal of this work has been the development and ensuring of “usability,” but a recent trend has been to extend this work to cover also the development and ensuring of “usefulness” (e.g., Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Cooper, 1999; Rosson & Carroll, 2002). A “mommy mob” is a label the usability specialists in unit A use of themselves, referring to a (largely) female group of usability specialists trying to control and monitor the designers.

Netta Iivari received her master’s degree in cultural anthropology from the University of Jyvaskyla in 2001 and completed her PhD degree in information systems at the University of Oulu in 2006. Currently she works as an assistant professor at the University of Oulu. Her research interest lies in usability work, user involvement, cultural aspects of IT, and everyday informatics. Her research relies on intepretive and critical research traditions. She has published in a number of conferences such as ICIS, HICSS, AMCIS.



Discussion on Paper 4 Rachel McLean, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

The point made by Netta Iivari that “user participation” is an old, tired concept that needs revisiting is of great relevance. This old concept does indeed need revisiting, as we still have not got it right. Not only does it need revisiting, but it needs revisiting in new ways … ways which, this time around, might just lead to an effective outcome. The emergent linguistic turn in information systems (IS) research (adopted here) is one such new way. It is remarkable that consideration of discourse and language used to construct and describe IS phenomena remains the domain of a small minority, with few journals publishing such work. The power and use of language has long since been recognized in other disciplines from the obvious—literary and media studies (Eco, 1981; Barthes, 1990) to advertising, marketing (Levy, 1959; Mick, 1986) and even management studies (Shotter, 1993; Morgan, 1986; Holman & Thorpe, 2003). Perhaps it is time that IS academics and practitioners recognized the similarities between their craft and the end product (or “artifact”) and that of the author/ writer, director or producer. Their discourse should turn from one of measure and control to one of creative process. For example, with reference to Lyotard’s (1984) “grand narrative,” Boje (2003) suggests that “managers as practical authors can decide if they are to be champions of official organization stories or whether they are able to listen to

and respond to personal experience narratives of employees, customers and communities” (p. 51). This is reminiscent of Barthes’ taxonomy of literature set out in the book S/Z (Barthes, 1990). Writing in the structuralist mode, Barthes argues that texts (or artifacts) may be divided into that which gives the reader a role or contribution to make, and that which leaves the reader passive and virtually powerless “with no more than the power freedom either to accept or reject the text” (Barthes, 1990), an “inert consumer to the author’s role as producer” (Hawkes, 1977). Barthes labels this dichotomy as “the writerly” and “the readerly,” arguing that the “readerly” offers opportunities for cooperation and coauthorship. User involvement in academia and information technology artifact product development could benefit from the development of this link with the literary tradition. Could we, perhaps, speak of the “developerly” and the “userly”? Here, however, it is worth noting the frequently made observation that the only other domain where customers are constructed as “users” is the field of drug abuse! Rhetoric is pivotal in both product and process. As illustrated well by Iivari, language used within organizations, among developers, usability experts and managers, constructs and defines the value of usability and user involvement. Significantly, the dominant discourse remains that of measure and control from a register of corporate financial gain, bestowing



little value on the user. This paper illustrates the need for a linguistic theory of IS. As Iivari notes, research in this vein is often criticized for its lack of relevance to practice. Could it be that this perceived lack of relevance is due to a lack of understanding of the power of language, and an inertia in IS academics and practitioners to challenge ingrained discourses? For me, this suggests that a linguistic theory of IS is of great relevance to practice.

References

Barthes, R. (1990). S/Z. London: Blackwell. Boje, D. M. (2003). Using narrative and telling stories. In D. Holman & R. Thorpe (Eds.), Management and language: The manager as practical author. London: Sage. Eco, U. (1981). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. London: HarperCollins.

Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism & semiotics. London: Methuen. Holman, D., & Thorpe, R. (2003). Management and language: The manager as practical author. London: Sage. Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(July-August), 117124. Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Mick, D.G. (1986). Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphology of signs, symbols, and significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 196-213. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London: Sage. Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage.

Rachel McLean is senior lecturer in business information technology at Manchester Metropolitan University’s Business School. She was awarded the United Utilities eBusiness studentship and earned her PhD “Consumer Knowledge, Empowerment & The Internet: Critical Research Into The Provision And Use Of eCommerce”at the University of Salford (2005). Her research interests lie in the sociology of technology, skills for the e-society, critical approaches to IS research and linguistics in IS research.


Exploring the Rhetoric on Representing the User

Exploring the Rhetoric on Representing the User

Suggest Documents

Greening Bonnaroo: Exploring the rhetoric and the reality of a ...

Exploring non-textual interaction. User responses on the TIFF event ...

Exploring the impact of user involvement on health ... - Lancaster EPrints

Exploring the impact of user involvement on health ... - Lancaster EPrints

exploring the effects of social influence on user ...

The Rhetoric of Disaster - Relevant Rhetoric

REPRESENTING THE NETHERLANDS OR REPRESENTING REM ...

Mining and Representing User Interests: The Case of ... - John Breslin

The Canons of Rhetoric

Representing the Nation Some Observations on ...

Never Mind the Rhetoric

The Rhetoric of Religion

The Canons of Rhetoric

on rhetoric and

Representing the riots - Core

On Representing the Relationship between the Mathematical and the ...

Exploring the Emotional Experience of the user ... - ScienceDirect.com

The Rhetoric of the Grant Proposal - Council on Undergraduate ...

THE RHETORIC OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT: THE ...

THE RHETORIC OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT: THE ...

Rhetoric of the Image - HUMA1970A

The Cultures of Rhetoric

behind the rhetoric - Amnesty International

RHETORIC