Co-Creation of Technology

Observe the setup and use of two smartphones, or compare the setup and use of same smartphone in two different contexts. Indeed, note just how infrequently it actually is used as a traditional voice communication device. Users configure their smartphones to serve as a tool for a variety of different activities, depending on the context. We sometimes start our demystifying technology workshops with an icebreaker question asking to describe one such way they’ve used the stuff they have in a way it wasn’t intended to address an immediate need.Without fail, everyone has a story.

In 2004, Ron Eglash described a normal process of appropriation that happens with technology, in which people take the stuff they have and use it in ways and to achieve goals not conceived of by the designers/producers. Bruce, Rubens, and An (2009) proposed we call the technical artifacts “innovations-in-use” in recognition that artifacts are continuously co-create by people to meet the needs of the current context. In their 2014 chapter “Meta-Design: Transforming and Enriching the Design and Use of Socio-Technical Systems”, Fisher and Herrmann argue that we need a new approach to the initial design of the technical artifact. Starting with a user-centered design approach that incorporates user representatives into the initial design process, the technical artifacts are intentionally under-designed. This is not to suggest it is a half-finished product in an inferior sort of way. Rather, it is designed with an understanding that each user will further co-create the artifact.  Bruce, Rubens, and An (2009) proposed we call the technical artifacts “innovations-in-use” as people continuously co-create the technologies.

An innovation-in-use framework also pushes us towards new, situated evaluation approaches for evaluating a sociotechnical system (Bruce, Ruben, and An, 2009, page 687). Instead of asking “What can an innovation do?”, we ask “What do people do as they use the innovation?”. Instead of “To what extent are the innovation’s goals achieved”, we ask “How do social practices change, in whatever direction?”. Instead of asking “How should people or the context of use change in order to use the innovation most effectively?”, we ask “How should the innovation be changed and how can people interact differently with it in order to achieve community goals?”. Instead of asking “How does the innovation change the people using it?”, we ask “How does the community fit the innovation into its ongoing history?”.

Demystifying technology, then, is our method to encourage movement from passive use to co-creation of innovations-in-use by community, in community, for community. It does so by opening up the black box of computer hardware, programs, and networks so that people can develop skills, agency, and self-efficacy to critically select and co-create technologies in ways that align with their context, values, and goals. It is important to note that it is not an advanced course of learning, but is integrated into every aspect of digital literacy, from the very first encounters and each step afterwards.