Presenting at CSCW 2014

Yesterday I presented “Planet hunters and seafloor explorers: legitimate peripheral participation through practice proxies in online citizen science” a paper I wrote with my colleagues at Syracuse University as part of our ongoing research on newcomer learning in the Zooniverse suite of citizen science projects. The paper was presented at the Conference for Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. A copy can be found in the CSCW 2014 Proceedings. For a quick preview, check out the abstract below.

Making visible the process of user participation in online crowdsourced initiatives has been shown to help new users understand the norms of participation [2]. However, in many settings, participants lack full access to others’ work. Merging the theory of legitimate peripheral participation [18] with Erickson and Kellogg’s theory of social translucence [10, 11, 16] we introduce the concept of practice proxies: traces of user participation in online environments that act as resources to orient newcomers towards the norms of practice. Through a combination of virtual [14] and trace ethnography [12] we explore how new users in two online citizen science projects engage with these traces of practice as a way of compensating for a lack of access to the process of the work itself. Our findings suggest that newcomers seek out practice proxies in the social features of the projects that highlight contextualized and specific characteristics of primary work practice.

Mapping the Peer-to-Peer Economy

p2p mapThere are a number of instantiations of peer-to-peer economic activity in which people leverage their latent skills or loan out latent capacity of tools they own. Each instantiation vary on a scale in terms of how much they tip in either direction of firm or market characteristics. For example, it can be argued that many of the sharing economy websites today like AirBnB or TaskRabbit are more akin to the market logic of prices signaling a relationship between supply and demand. While this is true, I argue that such platforms still fall under the umbrella of the peer-to-peer economy for two reasons: First, because they support disintermediated transactions; transactions where there is no middleman negotiating the terms of the transaction. In such transactions, individuals must come to such terms on their own, therefore, the relevance of social frameworks (shared social norms) is still a prominent and overarching component that mediates and determines the success of the transaction. Where we rely on such frameworks to be embedded and assumed in the relationship we have with resellers, this framework must be renegotiated in each peer-to-peer transaction, thus making such websites part of the peer-to-peer economic phenomenon. The second reason is the characteristic of utilizing latent capacity: Both platforms take assets like unused rooms in a home or the skills not being used during an individuals free time and create a platform that communicates such latent capacity to those who might want them.

Continue reading

The Sharing Economy and Resilient Communities

San Francisco just announced a move to create a network of local sharing economy businesses that will act a resource for disaster response. The building of a network that leverages latent local resources in order to support resiliency is a great example of social infrastructure.  A press release from the Mayor’s Office in San Francisco stated that the network was inspired by the work of the Airbnb community after Superstorm Sandy:

One immediate outcome of this new partnership is the launch of BayShare member Airbnb’s new tool to quickly deliver housing assistance to displaced residents following a disaster. Inspired by the Airbnb community’s work to donate housing to victims of Superstorm Sandy, the tool will help provide free emergency housing to families in need in cities in every part of the world.

Read more about the network at Shareable.net or check out the press release from the San Francisco Mayor’s Office.

Social Infrastructure as Design Objective for Neighborhood ICT

In the face of mitigating damage from natural disasters, the conversation often tends towards the importance of appropriate physical infrastructures. In a New Yorker article published in January, Eric Klinenberg, Professor of Sociology at NYU, pushed the conversation beyond physical infrastructure to include a discussion of social infrastructure. Klinenberg describes social infrastructure as the “people, places, and institutions that foster cohesion and support.”

Pointing to data from the Chicago heat wave of 1995, Klinenberg notes that Latinos in Chicago, who had high levels of poverty, faired better than other ethnic groups because they “lived in densely packed neighborhoods where dying alone is nearly impossible.” Another data point were two neighborhoods in Chicago’s South Side, another area of high poverty, where one neighborhood experienced a higher death rate than the other. The conclusion by researchers was that the neighborhood which had fewer deaths had more public space, more sidewalks, and more community organizations that brought “people into contact with friends and neighbors.” In the neighborhood with more public space, neighbors were actively involved in checking up on each other to make sure people were getting the resources they needed during the heat wave.

Continue reading

Empathy and Social Change

This video is of philosopher Roman Krznaric talking about how social change is contingent upon individuals being able to empathize with others. His premise ties in nicely with Beauregard’s belief that the political struggles of today are not about the recognition of power, but the recognition of peoples needs. Beauregard looks specifically at the role of proximity between actors and how this produces empathy and thus supports peoples ability to negotiate their interests and needs with those of others. In particular, he looks at the value of urban environments where people are constantly negotiating their interests given their close proximity to each other. So in short, taking what both Krznaric and Beauregard have to say, proximity between democratic actors is correlative to successful and viable democratic action (for more on this relationship take a look at my slidshow on the relationship between proximity and democracy). This of course should raise an interesting question for the role of place based information communication technology that supports interaction between neighbors. In what ways do such technology already promote this relationship between proximity and democracy? How might current design paradigms be altered so as to better support this relationship? The role of such technology in bringing people closer together is evident, how we might leverage it further to emphasize the importance of empathy or “outrospection” is a conversation worth pursuing.

*Special thanks to the blog,  “Nudge, Push, Shove: Social Justice Dispatches” where I first came across this video.