No sooner had I posted news of the HCI event Design for Life conference call than I found (via the CIRN list) that the European Media Technology and Everyday Life Network - objective to "investigate the realities and dynamics of the User Friendly Information Society" - has published its research. I know it's an easy shot at academics to complain about the impenetrability of their papers to other mortals, but when it is our taxes, and the subject is user friendliness, it would seem reasonable to ask for more understandable summaries. One of the main themes is inclusion and exclusion in the Information Society. Hmmm. How about accessible research findings as a start?
The vision statement sets the tone: "If we accept the argument that developing technological capabilities does involve a complex, endogenous process of change, negotiated and mediated both within organisations and at the level of society at large, it is obvious that policies cannot and should not be limited to addressing the economic integration of technological change, but must include all aspects of its broader social integration. We thus reject the notion of technology as an external variable to which society and individuals, whether at work or in the home, must adapt (Building the European Information Society for Us All, Final Policy Report of the High-Level Expert Group, European Commission , 1997)."
I think that there are probably valuable insights in papers including "The Web Generation? The (De)Construction of Users, Morals and Consumption" and "A social and technological view of Ambient Intelligence in Everyday Life: What bends the trend?".
But is it likely that the findings will make much impact if they are expressed only in these terms?
I think that one of the fundamentals of user-friendly research and design should be that the beneficiaries (or at least those acting on their behalf) should be able to understand what is going on and have some influence.
There is some hint of this in the the group's initial proposal, citied in Professor Roger Silverstone's paper "Media and Technology in the Everyday Life of European Societies"
“The social acceptance of new information and communication technologies is not just important from the point of view of social policy but it is crucial to the development of a broadly based information economy. Indeed innovation is a social process, not just a technological and an economic one. Technologies do not emerge without active involvement of the consumers and users who have to accept them as relevant and useful in their everyday lives. Technological change is itself mediated. Technologies change in their social acceptance, and societies change as new technologies are accepted. But some technologies are resisted and some groups within society are excluded from participating in the benefits that are expected”.
And the paper itself says, in arguing the need to move beyond simple access to technology: "Knowledge is participative. A key term and a key ambition at the heart of the knowledge society is literacy: the skills and capabilities which all citizens will need fully to participate in it, and fully to take advantage of the resources released by the Internet, mobile telephony and broadband delivery."
Adding: "It is a truism to suggest that society is not possible without communication, and that communication must, morally and sociologically, precede knowledge, which in turn presumes information. Without the capacity to communicate, neither knowledge nor information has much meaning."
End of easy shots... however, I have a genuine concern and question. Is it impossible to research and communicate findings in the spirit of participation and accessibility to policy makers and practitioners in terms they can understand and act upon? Is it that the European funding institutions (and others) demand this type of output? Is it that academics who can usually explain the interesting stuff in the conference bar are prevented by prevailing cultures from talking straight in public? Is this one of the major barriers to a more knowledgable society for us all?
Or is it me being dumb? Probably just that. I've mailed the research team to see if they do indeed have a user-friendly version, and will report any response.
Update Rover Silverstone emails me in reply - see comment below.
I think you do indeed have a point David, to which I'd like to add just a couple of things. First, it's hard (I think sometimes even for academics themselves) to distinguish theoretical complexity from jargonistic obfuscation. Sometimes it seems that the ideas are so deep (ie distant from the light of day) that our language is inadequate to express them, so we get plentiful uses of dis/embedded /slashes/ and (brackets (sorry parentheses)) which can strike one as (ir)relevant or (in)appropriate. There's something about competition in the academic world which is mostly healthy but can be stifling as soon as it's (over)done. And they do need to be teased from time to time.
More positively, as you're aware, I'm strongly conscious of how valuable much academic research is, if only we can get it shared in a sensible way. Hence my interest in bringing academics and practitioners together in conferences so that the ideas and knowledge can be reality-checked. Most academics I know are very keen to get involved in discussions with practitioners, they find it refreshing and stimulating. More needed.
Posted by: Kevin Harris | December 22, 2003 at 12:13 PM
Roger Silverstone replied by email to the original posting: "Thank for this. Point taken - in part. The Vision Statement you quote is actually taken verbatim from an EU publication (perhaps you should write to them). My own arguments talk about literacy as part of the process of communication. That means among readers as well as writers. These reports were written with a very particular audience in mind (and mostly by those writing in their second language). We are working on a book proposal which may go some way to meeting your objections. I am sure individual authors would be delighted to contribute something even more accessible on request should you ask them. Maybe - heretical though it may seem - we might also expect our readers to be able to make an effort to deal with complex material too."
I (DW) am a little chastened and have said I will try and make this a starting point for more positive exploration of the interesting points raised by the papers. Clearly work is needed on both sides.
Posted by: David Wilcox | December 22, 2003 at 12:36 PM
Thank you for the links - I am one of the audience for whom these reports were likely designed (a media academic-in-training with a policy interest) and Dr Silverstone heads my department. It was good of him to respond as he is on sabbatical at the moment. Your complaint is not an unusual one and with a foot in both camps I sympathise - take a look at my own weblog entry (trackbacked above) for a few thoughts...
I hope on reading the papers if you find them useful you will produce your own summaries which I would be happy to comment on in turn.
(P.S. It would be useful, David, if you could put up somewhere an "about David Wilcox" page people could link to when they mention you...)
Posted by: David Brake | December 22, 2003 at 01:58 PM
Please see the WSIS Civil Society Statement developed by us in Australia at www.ccnr.net/wsis. For all its faults, it will hopefull be the start of a dialogue and action in this country with political leaders/the all-pervasive bureaucracy, and with the next stage of WSIS and countries in the region.
And a little comment about usable research: there's a whole domain of applied techniques in this era in the 'world' of program evaluation, where 'utlisation focussed evaluation' (jargon in itself), is focussed on a) adoption b) intelligibility to different stakeholders, including different methods of presentation.
It's worth a read of Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focussed Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
The General Accounting Office of the US produces all sorts of useful materials, including a document called 'Message Conferenceing' http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/p0631.pdf a report developed some years ago, but it helps to understand the practice of communication within the bureaucracy (oxymoron of course).
Cheers
Posted by: Larry Stillman | December 23, 2003 at 08:15 AM