The Appropriation of ICTs - Day 2

I’ve been reading the book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” by Glaser and Strauss, which first introduced the concept of Grounded Theory as a form or sociological research. Among the many things I realized I don’t know on sociological research, I was really surprised by the insistence of these authors on the generation of sociological theory, instead of the verification of theories, as the main concern of the sociologist. Although I concede that I might be misunderstanding the point these authors are trying to make, I’ve been struggling with this idea and, at the same time, trying to apply it as I review and study the transcriptions of my fifteen interviews.

I’ve been using NVivo 7 to code these interviews, but I have found this software really burdensome: slow, buggy, crashing several times, and worst, not very suited to the task of coding interviews. Definitively, a software with low usability.

From my pilot study and from my early attempts at coding using NVivo I determined a set of categories (nodes) that are the result of my exploration of certain specific topics.

Topics Explored

Q.01 Computer

Q.02 Internet

Q.03 Email

Q.04 Internet Messaging

Q.05 Mobile Phones

Q.06 Online Social Networks

Q.07 Life at home

Q.08 Coming to Glasgow

Q.09 Keeping in touch - Home

Q.10 Keeping in touch - Locally

Q.11 Internet - Current Use

Q.12 Mobile Phones - Current Use

Q.13 IM - Current Use

Q.14 Online Social Networks - Current Use

Q.15 Life in Glasgow

Categories

1. Adaptation to audience

2. Adaptation to technological milieu

3. Allegiance

4. Appropriation

5. Community through technology

6. Convenience

7. Cost of technology

8. Early adoption of ICTs

9. Individuality

10. Off-line activities

11. Origin - Computers

12. Origin - Email

13. Origin - IM

14. Origin - Internet

15. Origin - Mobile Phone

16. Origin - Social Networks

17. Parents role

18. Peer influence

19. Piracy

20. Self-image

21. Studies

22. Technological Frames

23. Unallegiance

24. Uses of ICTs - Commercial

25. Uses of ICTs - Communication

26. Uses of ICTs - Entertainment

27. Uses of ICTs – Information

There seems to be some overlapping in these categories. For instance, category 3 (Allegiance) and 23 (Unallegiance) refer to opposite sides of the same phenomenon, that is, how attached or not a person is to a particular software application. Similarly, nodes 4 (Appropriation) and 9 (Individuality) seem to be linked. For instance, a person seems to be able to appropriate a technology because the technology affords some level of personal expression, even through something as “simple” as the ability to post a blog, as in the case of MSNSpaces; a system that from a certain perspective lacks the features found in other “modern” online social networks like Facebook. Here I should highlight the fact that I have a category called “appropriation” when at the same time I’m trying to make all of these nodes fit into the “process of appropriation” of technology. I’m still not sure how to solve this situation. In some cases the subject says something that clearly indicates that a technology has reached the status of “appropriated,” that is, the technology has clearly become part of a person’s lifestyle in such a way that the subject stops thinking of the technology as a separate entity and thinks instead in terms of what the technology affords. For instance, in talking about the reasons why Facebook is preferred over Orkut, a subject declares:

“Basically that is the problem with Orkut, but Facebook is much more secure than Orkut ‘cause Facebook has restricted access, only your friends and people whom you get to your friend list can see your profile.”

And then reaffirms:

“In Facebook I feel more comfortable, I keep uploading stuff.”

These declarations suggest the subject has been able to compare the pros and cons of both systems and has found one of them, at least from her point of view lacking. Around three months ago, when this subject joined Facebook she might have been unsure of its features, but now she seems to be so familiar with Facebook that she declares how comfortably she feels with this system and shows it by continually uploading stuff to her Facebook profile. On the other hand, what I call the “process of appropriation,” may begin when a person is first introduced to a piece of technology; which doesn’t necessarily mean the technology will be used, adopted, or appropriated.

Finally, node 17 (Parents role) and 16 (Peer influence) seem to be complementary aspects of the same phenomenon. Both categories refer to the range of influences that intervene in the process of adopting a new technology. It is frequent to find that the acquisition of a “novel” peace of technology or the adoption of a new computer application is almost always the direct result of external forces that provide the technology (e.g. through the purchase of a laptop or a mobile phone), or encourage its use (first by introducing the technology and second by acting as technical support to solve concerns regarding it). This category also covers other forces like that of the media that encourage the use of a novel technology as part of a life style, and even government interventions that promote the use of certain technologies to raise the literacy of a group and/or to ascend in the economic ladder. In any case, a further refinement of my second set of categories (nodes) seems to be necessary… and a recoding of some of my interviews!

I coded three or four interviews using NVivo but I realized that I was missing much needed reflection on the interviews themselves for reason of being struggling with the software. Thus, I decided to go the old way and printed the interviews (again!) and started coding with a pencil. In this way, and influenced by what I’ve been reading I started the process of memoing and trying to generate theory through some very premature hypotheses like the following:

Hypothesis 1

There seems to be a relationship between the way certain groups characterize themselves and the appropriation of certain technologies that reinforce this in-group characterization.

For instance, Chinese subjects frequently characterize themselves (at least while studying in China) as an always-studying group. This circumstance seems to be the direct result of a constant struggle to excel in school to increase their possibilities of securing the highest-paid job available. Excellence in school is believed to be fostered by the acquisition of a computer at home; a computer that will be, arguably, used for school related activities. The following two declarations are representative of this:

12 years ago. My parents bought a computer for me. I used CD-ROMs to search for information to help my studies. I was around 12 years old finishing elementary school. My parents bought a computer for my studies.

China 1

I got a computer at home when I was in high school; I was 16 years old. My parents got a computer for me because I told them I need to connect to the Internet because I need to study; I need to get information from outside of the world, blah, blah, blah… and my parents just bought one for me. At the same time I got my computer I was also getting access to the Internet. My excuse was that I would perform better at school.

China 2

However, this hypothesis should not be understood as trying to highlight an exclusive Chinese characteristic. The acquisition of a computer and the “uses” given to those computers to support school related activities were just more evident among the Chinese subjects interviewed. (I am trying to distance myself from so-called “cultural classifications.” I remain interested in my initial three national groups but just to try to identify patterns of appropriation among them.)

Hypothesis 2

For subjects who have achieved a certain level of expertise in the use of certain ICTs certain technologies (e.g. Online Social Networks) are easily appropriated because they provide avenues to express individuality and community.

I guess I need to clarify several keywords here. By expertise I mean those users who make frequent use of ICTs and for whom these technologies (perhaps by reason of being exposed for a longer period of time) seem to have acquired a certain value, for example, by making communication more convenient or expedite. (Although these users may see themselves as experts in these technologies they are not necessarily so.) It seems to be that users who have achieved this level of expertise tend to appreciate and value more their enhanced abilities of communication. This rationalization propels them further to experiment with additional features of the available technology. Thus, these expert users will use their enhanced abilities of communication to consciously express personal preferences, tastes and choices, in a word, their individuality.

Furthermore, some of these same expert users will make a conscious choice to use certain ICTs not necessarily to express individuality but to remain involved with a group of friends and/or relatives whom, in turn, seem to value the opportunity to remain involved in the everyday life of the student abroad.

[I need to provide some examples of this hypothesis here…]

Again, issues of individuality and community seem to be more evident among Chinese participants. I attribute this circumstance to their longer exposure to web-based ICTs that allow this type of expression. There is nothing to indicate that Greek participants (who seem to be the less versed in the use of web-based technologies in my sample) wouldn’t use similar technologies to express the same traits (individuality and community) if they were given similar features in a technology in which they might be experts (e.g. mobile phones).

There are three more hypotheses, which I will elaborate upon tomorrow. However, I would like to comment now on the more practical aspects of my research.

I’ve been recruiting new students for my experiment; however, I haven’t received the participation I was hoping for. I advertised my study on Facebook (in the group of the International Society), on my website (http://jose.rojasr.googlepages.com/study), and through some flyers I distributed in some recent social events of the International Society. I have secured two interviews tomorrow Wednesday with one Chinese and one Greek subject (http://jose.rojasr.googlepages.com/calendar), and I’m also waiting to hear from two more who made contact with me this morning.

As can be seen in my invitation, I’ve been offering some money to those interested in taking part in this study because I believe it would be very difficult to secure participation (and retention) over such an extended period of time. I have reduced the length of my interviews to just 30 min (more of this below), thus every person taking part in the study would only have to invest two hours of time per month. I think £15.00 per two hours of time per month is more or less fair. The problem now is how do I secure enough funds for 15 people over (at least) three months? I need around £675.00 for this and I am willing to invest all the money I made over the past few days in a part-time job I had; however, it only amounts to around £390.00.

As mentioned, I will reduce the length of my interviews to just 30 min each. I’ve done this to explore in more detail and depth the same themes/topics I explored in my previous interviews (see “Topics Explored” above). With this I’m trying to a) ensure that each interview is kept within a specific topic. Thus, when analyzing the transcript (ideally as I conduct those interviews) I will have all the responses already split into the topics, which in turn might render the process of comparison somehow easier; and b) bypass the problem I think I had with my previous interviews (e.g. time constraints, breadth of questions), ensuring this time more deep and meaningful answers.

Finally, interviews arranged in this form could also explore present use of ICTs from simple questions such as:

- What did you do yesterday?

- How are you preparing assignment/essay X?

- How did you coordinate last weekend’s party/club night/pub night?

- Compare and contrast the way you communicate with your friends at home and here in Glasgow

- Compare and contrast your experience as a student in your country and in the University of Glasgow

Continuing...

I'll continue describing the list of codes I've been using in conducting my initial coding of the Brazilian participant... then I will actually try to continue coding that interview.

- Evolving use (greener pastures) - Used to denote participant's changing behaviour towards ICTs as she considers alternatives and is attracted by them. This is very subjective.

- Evolving use (measured use of ICTs) - With time, participant seems to diminish her use of ICTs

- Evolving use (no better alternatives) - Participant is stuck with some software option because the available infrastructure forces her to.

- Formal training - Period when the participant seems to have been receiving formal instruction in the use of ICTs, for instance, at school.

- Frustration with computers (they break) - Participant reveals some distress due to regular use of computer.

- Frustration with technology - Similar to above but not necessarily in connection with computers (i.e., desktop or laptop computers).

- Going outside the circle of friends - Because of the use of ICTs the participant ventures beyond her offline group of friends.

- ICTs as a symbol of status - The use of ICTs seems to set the participant apart from other people, although not necessarily within her group of friends.

- ICTs supporting teenagers’ needs - ICTs seem to be able to support some behaviour traditionally associated with teenagers, e.g. popularity, socialization, etc.

- Initial frustration using computers (slow, costly, nobody has one) - Distress expressed during early stages of contact with computers

- Interest in novelty - Participant shows some form of interest in the "novelty" aspect of using ICTs

- Involuntary involvement - Participant seems to be reluctantly drawn to using ICTs because of some external circumstance.

- Involvement reluctance - I think this is similar to the previous one...

- Jeremiah behaviour - Participant assigns a negative consequence to the use of ICTs and expresses such concerns to her group (family, friends, etc.)

- Knowledge of workings of computers (?) - The participant discusses the shortfalls of an ICTs using some sort of working knowledge of computers.

- Local services - Services available in the participant's country of origin

- Ludic activities in primal contact - Participant's early use of computers is related to a

- Media influence - The participant begins using some ICTs influenced by the media

- Natural inclinations - I think this also refers to traditional teenagers behaviour... otherwise, I have no idea what I'm saying here.

- Parents’ influence - Parents play a substantial role in the initial experience of the participant with ICTs

- Parents’ influencing use - Similar to previous

- Parents’ support - Similar to previous

- Peer influence (friends?) - Participant is encouraged to try ICTs by her group of friends.

- Peer influence (parents) - Participant is encouraged to try ICTs by her parents.

- Peer pressure - Similar to Peer Influence

- Primal experience (email – c. 1997?) - Early participant's memories using ICTs

- Privacy concerns - Participant manifests some concerns regarding the role of privacy in ICT

- Recognizing role of technology (Online Social Networks) among a group of people - Participant's appraisal of the role of ICTs in people's life

- Recognizing value of technology - Similar to previous

- Slow evolution - Slow pace of change in the use of ICTs

- Status symbols - ICTs used to denote some form of status

- Teenager behaviour - Traditional behaviour associated with teenagers

- Traditional use (Office applications) - ICTs are used in their most traditional form, i.e. office applications.

- Unequal distribution of infrastructure - ICTs infrastructure is unequally distributed among the participant's group

- Unusual will power to deal with ICTs - Participant displays some extraordinary capacity to deal with ICTs

- Used by other members, but not all until later - I think this is the same as "Unequal distribution of infrastructure."

Where Do I Go From Here

Yesterday night I was notified that my position paper submitted to the workshop of Culture and Collaborative Technologies was accepted. I entitled my paper "The Cultural Construction of Ubicomp." However, I wish I could feel happier because of this... but I can't, though I'm trying... I'm still adrift in a sea of madness... I need to secure funding for this conference and I don't know how will that happen, but, of course, this is not the reason of my unhappiness.

Today I made some reading but I think I was short of my goal of two hours of reading. I think I just read for one and a half hours. I've been reading more on analyzing fieldwork notes and interviews. Yesterday I mentioned two types of coding, one I wrongly called open coding, which is in fact initial coding and focused coding. Today I started doing initial coding with the transcript of my Brazilian participant. I think I didn't make it even half-way through. I also read that in the process of analyzing two activities should be carried out almost simultaneously, one is coding and the other is memoing. There are three types of memoing: code memos, theoretical memos and operational/procedural memos.

They all aim at creating an account of what is it that one is doing during the different phases of the analysis. Since I don't know what else to write today and since I still have to write in this research journal, I will explain what I'm trying to say through each code I created today while analyzing my first interview with the Brazilian subject. I guess I won't be able to explain them all today, so I might continue tomorrow... This is what I'm supposed to do in the first type of memoing, code memos:

- Admiration for local services (?) - participant's admiration for some online service offered in her native country that seems to have motivated her to use that service.

- American influence - The participant emphasized how an American style of education seems to have been translated to the online realm.

- Appraisal of different software/applications - Participant seems to show some degree of familiarity or knowledge of software applications leading her to verbally criticize or appraise the software applications that for one reason or another she uses.

- Behaviour online (peeping?) - In describing her attitude towards internet messaging, participant says that most of the time wouldn't engage in meeting (online) people she hasn't met in real life. She preferred just taking notice of who was online and when.

- Computers and ICTs going mainstream - For different circumstances, the participant was exposed early in her life to ICTs, creating an imbalance with her group of friends that eventually diminished. This code refers to the "moment" when the penetration of computers among her group of friends became evident.

- Computers as a social medium - ICTs are seen as a tool for socializing

- Critical assessment of applications - I think I'm trying to say the same as "Appraisal of different software/applications"

- Early adopter - Participant was introduced early in her life to ICTs

- Early contact with computers (c. 1996?) - Participant was introduced early in her life to computers

- Early contact with Internet (c. 1997?) - Participant was introduced early in her life to the Internet

- Evolution (c. 2004?) - Denotes changing practices in her use of ICTs

- Evolving use (better options) - Denotes the use of a different ICT because a better option, in her view, is available.

If I Could Go Abroad

Today is the second day I'm able to read for two hours as agreed with my friend Mahmoud. I am writing on this blog to try to cover the one hour writing we also agreed... and this could be a way of keeping a research journal as well. Our two hours of reading don't necessarily need to be back to back, so the idea is just reading something useful related to our research.

This morning I finished (finally) chapter 1 of "The Closed World" by Paul N. Edwards. This books sustains that the development of computing technology as we know it is the result of the developments that took place during the cold war period after World War II. Edwards claims that it was a series of conscious choices what guided the development of computers; choices which were not necessarily the best for the very development of that technology, but ones that, notwithstanding, were needed to push forward the development of the machinery of war... mmhhh, perhaps I exaggerated with the last phrase. Edwards, I think, is also trying to prove that our infatuation with the promises of computing technology also have their origin with the promises of computing technology applied to the enterprise of war... I think this is an interesting idea... more interesting given the limitations of computers in reasoning and the other traits at which humans remain better... The idea of machines at war is also explored by Mark Dery in "Escape Velocity"... another book I've been reading lately and although I have been able to finish it it's quite interesting in its analysis of such trivial things as The Terminator movies...

Today I've been also reading from "Analyzing Social Settings" by Lofland et. al. I've been having problems with the analysis of those interviews... first because I've been avoiding it and second because I'm not sure how to proceed. According to what I've been reading I need first to code the information. There are two types of coding procedures, one called open coding and the other focused coding. Open coding is about assigning a relevant short description to basically every line of text. Focused coding is about analyzing those initial codes to find more encompassing terms that might describe on a higher level what was found in the transcription of each interview. I need to start doing this to better focus the aim of my proposed extended study and to refine the types of questions that I'll be asking because, as I said yesterday, my questions don't seem to be meaningful enough.

As every day, anxiety is slowly creeping into myself, and, as every day, I don't seem to be able to control it... I will keep on typing hoping it will pass...

This morning I came across one of my colleagues in the hall. We briefly discussed our recent submissions to CHI 2007. She submitted to the doctoral consortium - I'm planning to submit to the doctoral consortium at Ubicomp 2007 - and, as I said before, I submitted to a workshop. We are both at the same stage in our PhDs. I asked her to read one of the final drafts of my position paper and I believe she was surprised with my writing skills. I'm not even sure why, but I said that for the past few months I've been thinking on going abroad to teach English, but being not being a native speaker I don't feel confident enough to do that. She told me I wouldn't have any problem at all and about her friend who has been in South Korea teaching English for two years now.

All this kept me thinking and since I think I won't be able to secure some sort of funding to conduct some sort of ethnographic work abroad I was wondering if I could apply to this teaching scheme and while spending some time abroad conduct some ethnographic research at the same time... So I google the term "TEFL" and checked the first hit:

https://www.tefl.co.uk/index.asp

This company offers 20 hours-long weekend courses at the end of which you receive some form of certificate that allows you to teach abroad. The cost is £210.00. The most suitable date for me seems to be 31st of March in Edinburgh, although there seems to be another date in February. According to their website (and of course this has to be taken with caution) they can inform you of various teaching opportunities abroad. Their websites also paints a very attractive life teaching in China and other parts of the world. As I said, it would be an interesting way of going abroad to conduct ethnographic research and, why not, maybe even collaborating with some university while I'm there. If I can sort all this out I'm thinking that it would be possible to spend three or six months abroad... In any case, it would be a good way to see the world... and to see again that who is now causing me so much pain...

I sent an email to this company inquiring about my concerns (i.e., that my level of spoken English might not be that good) and they replied the following:

"Thank you for your emails. As long as you are fluent in English then you will be absolutely fine on the course. Your written English is very good so I am sure you will be able to lead a lesson with ease!
Please do let us know if you would like an place holding on that course for you until you can register."

This has encouraged me to pursue that idea...

Well, I've been writing for 40 min now and I don't know what else to say... I need to start, at least, reading again the transcripts of my interviews and start playing with "open coding."

I'm afraid... again... I am but a shadow of myself...

I'm back... But Not Quite Here Yet

Last Friday I finished my position paper for the "Workshop on Culture and Collaborative Technologies" that will be taking place at next CHI 2007. I don't even know how, but I was able to finish that piece. These last days I have been under so much emotional strain that I have no idea how come I am still here... but the account of that is not for this blog.

In the short position paper I submitted, I briefly discussed one of the most evident findings from my pilot study, that is, the fact that Chinese people seem to be more inclined to make use of ICT to remain in touch with family and friends back home. Some of the Chinese students I have met use MSN Spaces to blog and post pictures. In turn, they hope their friends will see their pictures and comment on their blog entries. This, they say, encourage them to continue posting to their friends' blogs.

I used the contrast between the responses of my other two participants from Brazil and Spain and the Chinese one to highlight this thing I've been saying, that is, that different countries/cultures use ICT for different things given the environment where they grew up or given the circumstances of their initial exposure to ICT.

I'm trying to continue building upon the ethnographic work of Genevieve Bell and her accounts of alternative views of ubicomp given different cultures and environments. Given my limitations (i.e., I can't go abroad to this type of research) I have focused in interviewing students who come from those other countries. I am planning to extend my study and interview more people, but I first need to refine my semi-structured interview because indeed I ask questions about past and present use of ICTs, but at the same time the questions are not meaningful enough... but I can't decide why they are not meaningful enough.

At first, the thought cross my mind that I should focus my questioning around how computing technologies might be desintegrating the family unit. I had this thought as I was watching on the news a report on that famous electronics show in Las Vegas. From what I could gather from the report all companies were concerned with bringing even more means to entertain people to every room in the home -something like the smart home for fun- and I thought that it was such a shame that these are the only technologies these companies seem to be able to come up with... Of course, the economic motives are evident, but still, I thought it was a shame... So, because of that is why I thought my focus could be in the desintegration of families because of distributed entertainment technologies at home... But I don't know if this is meaningful enough, or if I will be able to focus this topic.

I need to refine this semi-structured interview and need to start interviewing my larger sample... but I need to formally analyze my three previous interviews.

In the past weeks I was also engaged in writing a research proposal for an internship at Intel in Portland, Oregon. I made it all the way to an interview with the person for whom, I presume, I would be working with. Everything went really well, but apparently I was at a disadvantage for being a foreigner and the department issuing the internship call didn't want to risk giving me the position starting in April (although the initial intake would have taken place this January) and not being able to secure the proper visa for me.

Interestingly, the person in charge of this position is interested in collaborating with me in some sort of joint project. She says she is interested in these alternative views of ubicomp. I am surprised she has said this and I am surprised someone else found this interesting. - Well, my self-esteem is really low these days - Through email I told her how I was planning to conduct my extended study and told her that I would be interested in collaborating with her in whatever way, but I would like to relate any project to my own research. She offered advice and guidance. I was planning to write her today to update in my current state of affairs, which is not really different than three weeks ago, but I noticed she will be absent doing fieldwork... Anyways, there there's a good probable venue of collaboration.

I must mention that the actual purpose of the short paper I submitted to CHI was to request collaboration from researchers from all around the world to help me carry out this study. This is because I acknowledge the limitations of my proposed study, that is, a sample of students living abroad, language skills to communicate whatever it is they want to communicate, and my own limitations in understanding in its proper context the background of the people I will be interviewing. Of course, if in the end nobody helps, I will still carry out my study as "planned."

Finally, several months ago I applied for what I thought was a part-time, online position with Google as a Search Quality Coordinator (or something like that). One month after I applied, I was asked to take an online evaluation. I supposed I passed, but one month afterward I still didn't have any reply. So I made contact again and they called me and interviewed me over the phone. In the end they offer me a full-time position in Ireland... making 26,000 Euros per year... They were aware of my situation as a PhD student, but for some reason they didn't care... I think it was strange... I'm not sad for not taking that position. I'm sad it wasn't online and part-time.

Well, that's a very rough summary of the past months and weeks of madness... My sanity is in a questionable state these days...

Most people are fools, most authority is malignant...

Last week I finally finished "Dealers of Lightning: Xerox Parc and the Dawn of the Computer Age" by Michael Hiltzik. This is an account of the origins of PARC and of many of the initial ideas that eventually became available through personal computers. As I read that book I was somewhat surprised by the characters portrayed in this book and their influence in the development of computers as we know them. I think this perception has supported my view that ubiquitious computing as we know it, is the product of individual idiosyncracies, that is, of what some people think it should be.

As I read this book I became interested in reading some of the essays and articles that apparently influenced many people to develop computing technology in the way we know it. Yesterday, I put myself to the task of finding some of those articles. Now, I have a copy of Vannevar Bush's As We May Think, J.C.R. Licklider's Man-Computer Symbiosis and The Computer as a Communication Device, and Douglas Engelbart's Augmenting Human Intellect... I just need to read them...

As I was searching for these documents, I remembered that last November 5, 2006 Ted Nelson gave a lecture here at the University of Glasgow. (I was one of the lucky ones who had the opportunity to attend. According to what the presenter said, it was unusual to have a lecture theathre mostly full. That day I regreted not having something to record his lecture... not even a camera to take a photo of that day.) Since Ted Nelson is also credited with fathering some of the computing ideas still popular these days, I decided to also search for some of his articles or essays. I came accross a webcast of a lecture he presented (apparently) last November 2005 at the Oxford Internet Institute entitled The Politics Of Internet Software 'Geeks Bearing Gifts,' where I think he is currently a visiting researcher, or something. It was a pleasent surprise to realise that his lecture in Glasgow University was an abridged version of this other lecture, thus, I have been able to hear the extended version of the things he said here some months ago. However, at the end of the lecture he refers to some of his work still in the implementation phase. I did see demos of those applications when he was here. I must confess that I haven't been able to come to grips fully with his ideas about how the Web should work. For instance, the article Way Out of the Box is presented in his special format for the Web, but I can print it fully from the Web browser, thus, I had to copy and paste it in Word.

This online lecture deals with the technological agendas of current technologies. Mostly, he attributes these pervasive agendas to either the techies or the need to have a business model to make a technological development sustainable. He criticizes the work developed at PARC mainly because it made the wrong choice at deciding to replicate paper on screen. According to him, this ability of computers rather hinders the possibilities of computers as a medium of expression. It is precisely this fault what he's trying to correct through his own visions of computing.

Ted Nelson is also very critical of the role of techies in the development of computing technology. He said, "War is too important to be left to generals," which he uses to highlight his belief that techies are not supposed to be in charge of developing technology. He compares this circumstance to the history of films. In the early days, it was camera technicians who where in charge of making movies because they understood how to operate the equipment. Thus, he insists, computer applications need real directors to achieve their full potential, an issue that apparently is seen is the accepted wisdom that video games are more entertaining that office applications precisely because they have someone in charge of those aspects of production. Video games are developed by people who enjoy playing video games; that is not the case of office applications. "Today's computer world", Nelson said, "is based on techies misunderstandings of human thought and human life."

(In this online talk, Nelson is wearing what I would say are the very same clothes he was wearing when he came to Glasgow. I will always remember him like in this photo I made from that video)

Bassically, this was the same spirit of his talk here in Glasgow last May. I kept thinking that in the development of Ubicomp we might be making the same mistakes, that is, making some decisions that will ultimately harm the outcome of our developments. I think this has motivated my own approach to the whole issue of Ubicomp, an issue I explored in my First Year Report and in a research proposal I submitted to Intel last Tuesday, October 31st, 2006 for an internship position beginning January 2007 to work with Genevieve Bell's group.

Sometimes I think that by taking this weird stance of mine in regards to the development of Ubicomp I'm just trying to be different, thus, my ideas don't actually arise from an unselfish desire to improve society and question the whole idea of why we should be developing Ubicomp (see the paper Questioning Ubiquitous Computer by Araya), but from an ulterior motive of achieving fame...

This fact made me think of the role of personal egos and ultimate motives behind scientific research, issues that are nicely explored in The Self-Portrait of a Scientist, a very good essay I came across a few days ago, and of the ultimate consequences of our rationalization of the world and our existence here (see Love in the Age of Neuroscience).

... but maybe I shouldn't be worrying about these things...

Slashdot post!!!

Several days ago I submitted a post to Slashdot. I thought they would never post it... but finally they did.

Here's the link:

Cultural Influences in Computing Technologies?

:-)