Boundary Objects or Coordination Mechanisms?

Boundary Objects (BOs) and Coordination Mechanisms (CMs) are terms with a long history in CSCW. They have both been used widely since their initial definition. We find the concepts used in the same settings to describe some form of collaboration among different peoples or group of people. Sometimes it seems that the choice of concepts has not been thought through. Thus, in this paper, we give a detailed description of both concepts, and then we discuss them side by side by highlighting six issues that researchers should take in consideration before defining an object as a coordination mechanism or a boundary object

From Offshore Operation to Onshore Simulator: Using Visualized Ethnographic Outcomes to Work with Systems Developers

This paper focuses on the process of translating insights from a Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)-based study, conducted on a vessel at sea, into a model that can assist systems developers working with simulators, which are used by vessel operators for training purposes on land. That is, the empirical study at sea brought about rich insights into cooperation, which is important for systems developers to know about and consider in their designs. In the paper, we establish a model that primarily consists of a ‘computational artifact’. The model is designed to support researchers working with systems developers. Drawing on marine examples, we focus on the translation process and investigate how the model serves to visualize work activities; how it addresses relations between technical and computational artifacts, as well as between functions in technical systems and functionalities in cooperative systems. In turn, we link design back to fieldwork studies

Identifying and transforming sites of power in collaborative community-based research

For this dissertation, I analyzed collaboration practices and power structures within three community-based participatory research (CBPR) studies I conducted for my Ph.D. I ask: 1) How do dominant power structures, epistemologies, and narratives manifest in HCI research and praxis? 2) How can we structure research to support our community partners\u27 goals while resisting dominating and extractive practices in academic research? To respond to these questions, I conducted member checking interviews with my collaborators and a duoethnography with my dissertation advisor, Dr. Sheena Erete, about our experiences in the studies as a Black female professor and a white female graduate student. I grounded my findings in Black feminist thought by employing the intersectional analysis method developed by Erete, Rankin, and Thomas (2022). Through my intersectional analysis, I identified how systems of power and disciplinary norms influenced Dr. Erete\u27s and my decisions about how to structure our collaborations and organize our time and labor. These decisions impacted the distribution of benefit and harm within our collaborations. Systems of power also manifested in cultural narratives imbued within the studies; these narratives informed our methods and interactions with our collaborators and community members. I organize these findings into five saturated sites of power (a term developed by Collins, 2019) within CBPR. These are sites where intersecting systems of power acutely impact collaborators\u27 experiences and study outcomes. To support researchers in developing a non-extractive and mutually beneficial CBPR practice, I offer a set of reflexive prompts that address three themes: 1) evaluating researchers’ capacity for the work; 2) distributing resources through CBPR; and 3) using narratives as a reflexive tool. This dissertation contributes to critical human-computer interaction (HCI) literature and offers recommendations that researchers can use to intentionally co-design studies that mitigate harm and advance community-defined goals

Tumblr was a trans technology: the meaning, importance, history, and future of trans technologies

Building from previous researchers’ conceptions of queer technologies, we consider what it means to be a trans technology. This research study draws from interviews with Tumblr transition bloggers (n = 20), along with virtual ethnography, trans theory, and trans technological histories, using Tumblr as a case study to understand how social technologies can meet the needs of trans communities. Tumblr supported trans experiences by enabling users to change over time within a network of similar others, separate from their network of existing connections, and to embody (in a digital space) identities that would eventually become material. Further, before 2018 policy changes banning “adult” content, Tumblr upheld policies and an economic model that allowed erotic content needed for intersectional trans community building. We argue that these aspects made Tumblr a trans technology. We examine themes of temporality, openness, change, separation, realness, intersectionality, and erotics, along with considering social media platforms’ policies and economic models, to show how trans technologies can provide meaningful spaces for trans communities.National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships Program Grant No. DGE-1321846internal grant from the University of California, Irvine (James Harvey Scholar Award)Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153782/1/Tumblr was a trans technology the meaning importance history and future of trans technologies.pdfDescription of Tumblr was a trans technology the meaning importance history and future of trans technologies.pdf : Main articl

Open design at the intersection of making and manufacturing

This one-day workshop aims to consider the opportunities for HCI at the intersection of maker culture and professional, industrial manufacturing. In particular, we are interested in exploring how the concept of “open design” could help support productive interactions between professional manufacturers and non-professional makers. Our proposal builds on momentum established by previous related workshops (including one at CHI2016) and aims to respond critically to several key industry and government reports published in 2015-2016 on the ‘maker movement’