Cultural Considerations in HIP

1. Cultural Considerations in HIP • Thursday, 31-March-2011 • T14: Human Information Processing

2. Socio-Technical InteractionsVatrapu, R. (2010). Explaining Culture: An Outline of a Theory of Socio-Technical Interactions. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Conference on Intercultural Collaboration (ICIC 2010), 19-20 August 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark. Socio-Technical Systems involve: Interacting with Technologies Interacting with Others via Technologies Interacting with Technologies Perception of Affordances Appropriation of Affordances Interacting with Others via Technologies Structures of Technological Intersubjectivity Functions of Technological Intersubjectivity

3. Affordances Cognitive Psychology Subjectivity of Meaning: Interpretation Internal Representations & External Representations Minded Meaning: Symbolic/ Semantic Mind : Brain :: Software : Hardware (Block, 1995) “Copying in the world” Ecological Psychology Relationality of Meaning: “Direct Perception” of “Circumambient Arrays” (Gibson, 1979) Affordanes: Action-Taking Possibilities and Meaning-Making Opportunities Embodied Meaning: Informational/Pragmatic Mind : Brain :: Action : Perception “Coping with the world” Problem Logical Gap between Interpretive and Informational Theories of Meaning One Solution Bridge the gap by making Meaning Ecologically Cognitive

4. Affordances From J.J. Gibson to Alva Noë Norman’s introduction to HCI and the debate thereafter Enactive Approach: Evolutionary Biology, Ecological Psychology, Consciousness Studies Action-Taking Possibilities & Meaning-Making Opportunities Two -Systems Hypothesis (Bridgeman, 2000) Functionally Separate Visual Systems Visual (Meaning-Making) Visual Guidance of Behavior (Action-Taking)

5. 2001: A Space Odyssey • The ”greatest edit” ever

6. Affordances From J.J. Gibson (1977, 1979) to Alva Noë (2004) Norman’s (1988) introduction to HCI and the debate Enactive Approach: Evolutionary Biology, Ecological Psychology, Consciousness Studies Action-Taking Possibilities & Meaning-Making Opportunities Two -Systems Hypothesis (Bridgeman, 2000) Functionally Separate Visual Systems Visual (Meaning-Making) Visual Guidance of Behavior (Action-Taking)

7. Uptake in HCI POET (Norman, 1988) Types Perceptible, Hidden, False (Gaver, 1991) Physical, Sensory, Functional and Cognitive (Hartson, 2003) Classes Technology, Media, Interaction (Gaver, 1991, 1992, 1996) Social (Bradner, 2001) Perceived Affordance (Norman, 1999) Review(McGrenereand Ho, 2000) “We Can’t Afford it!” (Torenvliet, 2003)

8. Perception of Affordances What do you perceive in a particular situation? Ecological Information, Technological Mediation, Cultural Agency, “Demand Characteristics”(Orne, 1962) Professional Vision (Goodwin, 1994) Strong Argument Differences are Incommensurable Socio-Biological Explanation Weak Argument Acculturation, Assimilation, Accommodation Socio-Cultural Explanation

10. Appropriation of Affordances Rogoffand Lave (1984): “cognition is something one uses, not something one has” Not deterministic, actors can choose to enact socio-culturally appropriate actions in a given situation Intentional utilization of affordances is culture-sensitive, context-dependent, & tool-specific Eg: Coke Bottle in the movie Gods Must be Crazy

11. Gods Must be Crazy • Please watch the movie or a ”youtube” clip for the ”appropriate of affordances” that ensues and the societal change that emerges

12. Socio-Technical Affordances Affordances are meaning-making opportunities and action-taking possibilities in an actor-environment system in a particular situation, relative to actor competencies and system capabilities Ontological Foundations (Turvey, 1992) Materialist Dynamicist Property Realist Principle of Reciprocity—distinguishable yet mutually supportive realities

13. Intersubjectivity Problem of Other Minds Having vs. Knowing Psychological as well as Phenomenological Situational vs. Dispositional Attribution Contact Hypothesis Social consequences of connectivity augured by information and communication technologies Time-Shifting Place-Shifting

14. Technological Intersubjectivity Production, Projection, and Performance of Intersubjectivity How actors interact with, relateto, and formimpressions of each other "Piled Higher and Deeper" by Jorge; www.phdcomics.com. Image used with permission.

15. Technological Intersubjectivity (TI) Structures of TI Configuration of the particular social relationship Mother – Child PhD Advisor – Student Project Manager – Member Dependent vs. Interdependent Conceptions of the Self Functions of TI Dynamics of the particular social relationship Eg: proxemics, socio-linguistics, interactional patterns Cultural Variation in Structures and Functions of TI

16. Culture Kroeber and Kluckhorn(1952) Compilation of over 200 definitions of culture Categorized into 6 distinct groups of definitions

17. (House et al., 2004) Culture and Behavior

18. (Hall, 1976) Culture and Communication

19. (Nisbett and Norenzayan,2002) Culture and Cognition

20. Vatrapu, R. and Suthers, D. (2007). Culture and Computers: A Review of the Concept of Culture and Implications for Intercultural Collaborative Online Learning. In Ishida, T., Fussell, S.R. and Vossen, P.T.J.M. eds. Intercultural Collaboration I : Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag 2007, 260-275. Culture and Computers Reeves and Nass’s (1996)“The Media Equation” Social aspects of human-computer interaction User Interface Design Usability Evaluation Web Design E-Commerce Information Systems Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Online Learning

21. Culture and CSCL • Vatrapu, R., & Suthers, D. (2010). Intra- and Inter-Cultural Usability in Computer Supported Collaboration. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(4), 172-197. • Vatrapu, R., & Suthers, D. (2010). Cultural Influences in Collaborative Information Sharing and Organization. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM International Conference on Intercultural Collaboration (ICIC 2010), Copenhagen, Denmark. • Vatrapu, R., & Suthers, D. (2009). Is Representational Guidance Culturally Relative? Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings, Rhodes, Greece, pp.542-551. • Vatrapu, R. (2008). Cultural Considerations in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(2), 159-201.

22. Formal Definition of Socio-Technical Affordance Let W = (T, S, O) be a socio-technical system (e.g., person-collaborating-with-another-person system) constituted by Technology T (e.g., collaboration software), Self-actor S, (e.g., artifact creator), and Other-actor O (e.g., artifact editor). Let p be a property of T; q be a property of S and r be a property of O. Let β be a relation between p, q and r, p/q/r. β defines a higher order property (i.e., a property of the socio-technical system). Then β is said to be a socio-technical affordance with respect to W if and only if: (i) W = (T,S,O) possesses β (ii) Neither T,S,O; (T, S); (T,O); (S,O) possesses β

23. Design Spaceof Affordance Classes

24. Grounding Constraints in Communication • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127-149): American Psychological Association. Grounding Constraints

25. (Nisbett and Norenzayan,2002) Socio-Cognitive Properties

26. Future WorkComputational Social Science Laboratory (CSSL) Instrumentation, Instrumentation and Instrumentation Actors Eye-Tracking and Pupilometrics Physiological Measures Neuro-imaging? Interactions Screen-Recordings Software Logs Contexts Ethnographic Observations

27. Future Analytical WorkContingency Graphs & Uptake Analysis (Suthers et al. 2010)

28. Q&A