User theory for inclusion or exclusion? Conceptual models to address the role of users for inclusive socio-technical change
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/nocsi.v0i3.91144Keywords:
user theory, technologies for inclusive development, inclusive innovation, participation in science and technology, technology governance, critical studies of innovationAbstract
Innovation Studies (IS) and Science, Technology and Society studies (STS) explored the role of users in socio-technological change: from their role as consumers, adopters or experimenters to maximize profit, to exploring the mutual shaping of users and technologies and the power relations embedded into the process of use. By the turn of the century, amidst broader claims to democratize Science and Technology, scholars and practitioners explored the ways technologies may contribute to overcome social, material, and political restrictions in structural inequality scenarios. While discursively praising user inclusion as a ‘good practice’, ‘technologies for inclusive development’ (TID) ranged from processes of distributed decision-making and empowerment to paternalistic schemes and unwanted effects that reinforce exclusion patterns. This paper aims to revisit user theories through the lens of inclusion/exclusion to explore user engagement in TID initiatives to understand the relation between user involvement and ‘inclusive’ outcomes. We argue that diverse theoretical views on user-centeredness, which we systematize in 5 types, are tied to different normative assumptions about what user-centeredness is for, with implications for technology practice and STS theory. In interaction between literature review and instrumental TID case studies (in water, health, nutrition, and recycling), we examine how these differences lead to differential outcomes in terms of inclusion (e.g., exclusion problem-solving, distribution of benefits, social learning). In turn, we analyze how bringing the inclusiveness/exclusion dimension may help to reveal user literature blind spots that need to be addressed, and how unveiling user theory may contribute to deepen our understanding of inclusion in technology making.
References
Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). User-Centered Design. In W. Bainbridge, Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Sage Publications.
Akrich, M. (1992). The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society Studies in Sociotecnical Change. MIT Press.
Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society Studies in Sociotecnical Change (p. 259-264). MIT Press.
Benatar, A. F., Danesi, E., Besuschio, S. A., Bortolotti, S., & Cafferata, M. L. (2021). Prospective multicenter evaluation of real time PCR Kit prototype for early diagnosis of congenital Chagas disease. EBioMedicine, 69, 103450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103450
Benítez Larghi, S. (2020). Desafíos de la inclusión digital en Argentina. Una mirada sobre el Programa Conectar Igualdad. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 33(46), 131-154.
Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT press.
Blaxill, L., & Beelen, K. (2016). Women in Parliament since 1945: have they changed the debate? History and Policy, July 25. https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/women-in-parliament-since-1945-have-they-changed-the-debate
Bortz, G. (2017). Biotecnologías para el desarrollo inclusivo y sustentable. Políticas públicas y estrategias de producción de conocimiento, desarrollo tecnológico e innovación para resolver problemas sociales y ambientales en Argentina (2007-2016). Doctoral diss., Universidad de Buenos Aires. https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/83200?show=full
Bortz, G., & Thomas, H. (2017). Biotechnologies for inclusive development: scaling up, knowledge intensity and empowerment (the case of the probiotic yoghurt ‘Yogurito’ in Argentina). Innovation and Development, 7(1), 37-61.
Bortz, G., & Thomas, H. (2019). Parasites, bugs and banks: problems and constraints of designing policies and technologies that transform R&D into healthcare solutions: the case of Chagas disease in Argentina (2007–2017). Innovation and Development, 9(2), 225-243.
Carenzo, S. (2014). Lo que (no) cuentan las máquinas: la experiencia sociotécnica como herramienta económica (y política) en una cooperativa de “cartoneros” del Gran Buenos Aires. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología, 18, 109-135.
Carenzo, S. (2017). Invisibilized creativity: Sociogenesis of an “innovation” process developed by cartoneros for post-consumption waste recycling. International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace, 5(1-2), 30-48.
Carenzo, S., & Schmukler, M. (2018). Hacia una ontología política del diseño cartonero: reflexiones etnográficas a partir de la experiencia de la cooperativa Reciclando Sueños (La Matanza, Argentina). Inmaterial. Diseño, Arte y Sociedad, 3(5), 53-80.
Casper, M. J., & Clarke, A. E. (1998). Making the Pap smear into the ‘Right Tool’ for the job: cervical cancer screening in the USA, circa 1940-95. Social studies of science, 28(2), 255-290.
Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us. University of California Press.
Chilvers, J., & Matthew, K. (2020). Remaking participation in science and democracy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 45(3), 347-380.
Clarke, A. (1998). Disciplining reproduction: modernity, American life sciences, and “the problems of sex”. University of California Press.
Cleaver, F., & Hamada, K. (2010). ‘Good’ water governance and gender equity: a troubled relationship. Gender & Development, 18(1), 27-41.
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.
Dagnino, R. (Ed.). (2010). Tecnología Social. Ferramenta para construir outra sociedade. Komedi.
Dias, R. de B. (2013). Tecnologia social e desenvolvimento local: reflexões a partir da análise do Programa Um Milhão de Cisternas. Revista brasileira de desenvolvimento regional, 1(2), 173-189.
Dickson, D. (1974). Alternative Technology and the Politics of Technical Change. Fontana/Collins.
Faulkner, W., & Lie, M. (2007). Gender in the information society: Strategies of inclusion. Gender, Technology and Development, 11(2), 157-177.
Fleck, J. (1988). Innofusion or diffusation? The nature of technological development in robotics (No. 4). Research Centre for Social Sciences, University of Edinburgh.
Foster, C., & Heeks, R. (2013). Conceptualising inclusive innovation: Modifying systems of innovation frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income consumers. The European Journal of Development Research, 25(3), 333-355.
Foster, C., & Heeks., R. (2013). Innovation and Scaling of ICT for the Bottom-of-the-Pyramid. Journal of Information Technology, 28(4), 296-315.
Fressoli, M., Dias, R. de B., & Thomas, H. (2014). Innovation and Inclusive Development in the South: A Critical Perspective’. In E. Medina, I. da C. Marques & C. Holmes (eds.), Beyond Imported Magic. Essays on Science, Technology, and Society in Latin America (p. 47-66). MIT Press.
Gaglio, G., Godin, B., & Pfotenhauer, S. (2019). X-Innovation: Re-Inventing Innovation Again and Again. Novation: Critical Studies of Innovation, 1, 1-16.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research policy, 36(3), 399-417.
Gupta, A.K., R. Sinha, D. Koradia, R. Patel, M. Parmar, et al. (2003). Mobilizing grassroots’ technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital. Futures, 35, 975-987.
Guston, D. H. (2004). Forget politicizing science. Let's democratize science! Issues in Science and Technology, 21(1), 25-28.
Hanlin, R. E., & Murguri, L. (2009). Improving Access to Health Technologies by the Poor: the Social Context in Tanzanian Bed Net Production and Delivery, International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 8(3), 237-248.
Haraway, D. (1995). Ciencia, cyborgs y mujeres. La reinvención de la naturaleza. Cátedra.
Hardoy, J., & Pandiella, G. (2009). Urban poverty and vulnerability to climate change in Latin America. Environment and urbanization, 21(1), 203-224.
Herrera, A. (1981). The Generation of Technologies in Rural Areas. World Development, 9(1), 21-34.
Hoffman, B. (2021). How Climate Change Worsens Poverty and Inequality. IADB Reports, April 30. https://blogs.iadb.org/ideas-matter/en/how-climate-change-worsens-poverty-and-inequality/
Hyysalo, S., Juntunen, J. K., & Freeman, S. (2013). User innovation in sustainable home energy technologies. Energy Policy, 55, 490-500.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press.
Johnson, B. (2011). From user-producer relations to the learning economy. Science and Public Policy, 38(9), 703-711.
Kaplinsky, R. (2011). Schumacher meets Schumpeter: Appropriate Technology Below the Radar. Research Policy, 40(2), 193-203.
Kleinman, D. L. (Ed.) (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. SUNY Press.
Kline, R. (2003). Resisting consumer technology in rural America: The telephone and electrification. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (eds.), How users matter: the co-construction of users and technologies (p. 51-66). MIT Press.
Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1996). Users as Agents of Technological Change: The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States, Technology and Culture, 37, (4), 763-795.
Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The sociological review, 38(1_suppl), 103-131.
Latour, B. (1991). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
Lie, M., & Sørensen, K. H. (eds.). (1996). Making technology our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life. Scandinavian University Press.
Lundvall, B-Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg & L. Soete, (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory (p. 349-369). Pinter.
Lundvall, B-Å., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industrial Studies, 1, (2), p23-43.
Maines, R. P. (2001). The technology of orgasm: “Hysteria” the vibrator, and women's sexual satisfaction. JHU Press.
Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and democratic technics. Technology and culture, 5(1), 1-8.
Oldenziel, R. & Hård, M. (2013). Consumers, Tinkerers, Rebels: The People Who Shaped Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (eds.) (2003). How users matter: the co-construction of users and technologies. MIT Press.
Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29(1), 30-63.
Peyloubet, P. (2021). Co-construcción interactoral del conocimiento. Nobuko.
Pfotenhauer, S. M., Juhl, J., & Aarden, E. (2019). Challenging the “deficit model” of innovation: Framing policy issues under the innovation imperative. Research Policy, 48(4), 895-904.
Pinch, T. (2003). Giving birth to new users: how the Minimoog was sold to Rock and Roll, en Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (eds.), How users matter: the co-construction of users and technologies (p. 247-270). MIT Press.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social studies of science, 14(3), 399-441.
Prahalad, C. K. (2010). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits. Wharton School Publishing.
Rommes, E., van Oost, E., & Oudshoorn, N. (1999). Gender in the Design of the Digital City of Amsterdam. Information, Communication & Society, 2(4), 476-495.
Sanbonmatsu, K. (2017). Why Women? The Impact of Women in Elective Office. Political Parity. A Program of Hunt Alternatives, https://www.politicalparity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Parity-Research-Women-Impact.pdf
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. Blond & Briggs.
Schumpeter, J. A. (2017 [1934]). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capita I, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Routledge.
Schwartz Cowan, R. (1976). The “Industrial Revolution” in the Home: Household Technology and Social Change in the 20th Century. Technology and Culture, 17(1), 1-23.
Schwartz Cowan, R. (1987). The consumption junction: A proposal for research strategies in the sociology of technology. In W. E. Bijker & T. Pinch (eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (p. 261-280). MIT Press.
Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental politics, 16(4), 584-603.
Smith, A., Fressoli, M., & Thomas, H. (2014). Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 114-124.
Smith, A., Voß, J.-P. & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-448.
Soni, P., & Krishnan, R. T. (2014). Frugal innovation: aligning theory, practice, and public policy. Journal of Indian Business Research. 6(1), 29-47.
Sørensen, K. H. (1996). Learning technology, constructing culture. Socio-technical change as social learning. STS Working Paper 18/96, Trondheim: University of Trondheim, Centre for Technology and Society.
Sørensen, K. H., Aune, M., & Hatling, M. (2000). Against linearity: on the cultural appropriation of science and technology. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (eds.), Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology (p. 165-179). Routledge.
Stewart, J., & Hyysalo, S. (2008). Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), 295-325.
Thomas, H. (2008). ‘Estructuras cerradas vs. procesos dinámicos: trayectorias y estilos de innovación y cambio tecnológico’. In H. Thomas & A. Buch (eds.), Actos, actores y artefactos. Sociología de la tecnología. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
Thomas, H., & Santos, G. (eds.) (2016) Tecnologías para incluir. Ocho análisis socio-técnicos orientados al diseño estratégico de artefactos y normativas. Lenguaje Claro.
Thomas, H., Becerra, L., Fressoli, M., Garrido, S., & Juarez, P. (2017). Theoretical and policy failures in technologies and innovation for social inclusion: the cases of social housing, renewal energy and food production in Argentina. In S. Khulmann & G. Ordóñez-Matamoros (eds.), Research Handbook on Innovation Governance for Emerging Economies. Edward Elgar.
Thomas, H., Bortz, G., & Garrido, S. (2015). Enfoques y estrategias de desarrollo tecnológico, innovación y políticas públicas para el desarrollo inclusivo. Documento de trabajo IESCT-UNQ, 1.
Truffer, B. (2003). User-led innovation processes: the development of professional car sharing by environmentally concerned citizens. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 16(2), 139-154.
van Oost, E. (2003). Materialized gender: How savers configure the user’s femininity and masculinity. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (eds.), How users matter: the co-construction of users and technologies (p. 193-208). MIT Press.
von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research policy, 5(3), 212-239.
von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management science, 32(7), 791-805.
von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Management science, 40(4), 429-439.
von Hippel, E. (2009). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(1), 29-40.
WHO-TDR (2021). Operational research to support the elimination of infectious diseases in Latin America and the Caribbean. TDR Newsroom, June 16. https://tdr.who.int/newsroom/news/item/16-07-2021-operational-research-to-support-the-elimination-of-infectious-diseases-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean
Willoughby, K. W. (1990). Technology Choice: A Chritique of the Appropriate Technology Movement. ITDG.
Woolgar, S. (1997). Configuring the user: inventing new technologies. In K. Grint & S. Woolgar (eds.), The machine at work: Technology, work and organization (p. 65-94). Polity Press.
Wyatt, S. (2003). Non-users also matter: the construction of users and non-users of the Internet. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (eds.), How users matter: the co-construction of users and technologies (p. 67-80). The MIT Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
NOvation is an open-access journal under a Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 license, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement (and preservation) of the author's authorship and intellectual property rights.
To this extent, the authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:
1. Authors retain the rights and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work published under the Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 that allows [...].
2. Authors have authorization for distribution, of the version of the work published in this journal, in an institutional repository, thematic, databases and in other works as a book chapter, with acknowledgement of authorship and initial publication in the journal;
3. Papers published in this journal will be indexed in databases, repositories, portals, directories and other sources in which the journal is and will be indexed.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
