Muller, M., Guha, S., Baumer, E.P.S., Mimno, D., and Shami, N.S. (2016). Machine Learning and Grounded Theory Method: Convergence, Divergence, and Combination. in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP). (Sanibel Island, FL).
Grounded Theory Method (GTM) and Machine Learning (ML) are often considered to be quite different. In this note, we explore unexpected convergences between these methods. We propose new research directions that can further clarify the relationships between these methods, and that can use those relationships to strengthen our ability to describe our phenomena and develop stronger hybrid theories.
Scolere, L., Baumer, E.P.S., Reynolds, L., and Gay, G. (2016). Building Mood, Building Community: Usage Patterns of an Interactive Art Installation. in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP). (Sanibel Island, FL).
To examine the processes by which appropriation happens around an interactive art installation in an organizational context, this paper presents a qualitative, longitudinal study of an interactive art installation called mood.cloud. While designed to collect and to visually display building occupants’ collective emotion, the installation was not necessarily used or interpreted in this way. Instead, building occupants saw the sensory experience of mood.cloud and the ability to change the display as a way to influence their own feelings, the feelings of others, and the overall workplace ambience. We found that interaction with mood.cloud fostered reflection about the relationship between the individual and the larger collective that the person is a part of. This relationship, between appropriation for individual benefit and appropriation for the benefit of others, afforded participants the opportunity to become more aware of their own contribution as part of a larger community. These findings suggest an opportunity to design systems around the interplay between appropriation for the individual and appropriation for the community.
Last week, my co-authors and I had a paper appear on factors that influence how likely someone who leaves Facebook is to return to site. The paper was published in the stellar new journal Social Media + Society. The term “stellar” is deliberate, as the journal’s editorial board basically reads like an all-star list of social media researchers.
Well, the paper has now been covered in a few media outlets. In addition to the official Information Science press release, stories have appeared in the Huffington Post, the International Business Times, IT News, and DNA India. I also was interviewed by local Ithaca radio station WHCU and Rochester TV station WHAM, and the latter interview is online.
It’s nice to see so much interest in the work, especially since I’ll be publishing lots more on this topic in the near future.
Update (12/23): More coverage in the Huffington Post, in NY Daily News, and in Daily Mail UK.
Baumer, E.P.S., Guha, S., Quan, E., Mimno, D., & Gay, G. (2015). How Non-use Experiences Influence the Likelihood of Social Media Reversion: Perceived Addiction, Boundary Negotiation, Subjective Mood, and Social Connections. Social Media + Society.
This article examines social media reversion, when a user intentionally ceases using a social media site but then later resumes use of the site. We analyze a convenience sample of survey data from people who volunteered to stay off Facebook for 99 days but, in some cases, returned before that time. We conduct three separate analyses to triangulate on the phenomenon of reversion: simple quantitative predictors of reversion, factor analysis of adjectives used by respondents to describe their experiences of not using Facebook, and statistical topic analysis of free-text responses. Significant factors predicting either increased or decreased likelihood of reversion include, among others, prior use of Facebook, experiences associated with perceived addiction, issues of social boundary negotiation such as privacy and surveillance, use of other social media, and friends’ reactions to non-use. These findings contribute to the growing literature on technology non-use by demonstrating how social media users negotiate, both with each other and with themselves, among types and degrees of use and non-use.
Baumer, E. P. S., Ames, M. G., Burrell, J., Brubaker, J. R., & Dourish, P. (2015). Why Study Technology Non-use? First Monday, 20(11).
This special issue provides an opportunity to rethink how we approach, study, and conceptualize human relationships with, and through, technology. The authors in this collection take a multiplicity of approaches on diverse topics to develop a rigorous theoretical understanding for non-use, setting crucial groundwork for future research.
This is a bit delayed (announcements went out a week or two ago via email, Twitter, etc.), but our special issue of First Monday about Technology Non-use has now been published. It’s been my great privilege over the past year to work with a fantastic team of co-editors and some truly brilliant contributing authors. If you have any interest in communication and technology, computing and society, or anything of the sort, I highly encourage you to check it out.
Most conferences happen annual. Some happen bi-annually. Well, there’s at least one conference only happens every 10 years. This is the Aarhus Decennial Critical Computing conference. I’m pleased to say that, this summer, a paper I co-authored will appear in the proceedings. You can see the camera ready version.
Khovanskaya, V., Baumer, E.P.S., and Sengers, P. (2015). Double Binds and Double Blinds: Evaluation Tactics in Critically Oriented HCI. in Proceedings of the Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Computing. Aarhus, Denmark.
Critically oriented researchers within Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) have fruitfully intersected design and critical analysis to engage users and designers in reflection on underlying values, assumptions and dominant practices in technology. To successfully integrate this work within the HCI community, critically oriented researchers have tactically engaged with dominant practices within HCI in the design and evaluation of their work. This paper draws attention to the ways that tactical engagement with aspects of HCI evaluation methodology shapes and bears consequences for critically oriented research. We reflect on three of our own experiences evaluating critically oriented designs and trace challenges that we faced to the ways that sensibilities about generalizable knowledge are manifested in HCI evaluation methodology. Drawing from our own experiences, as well as other influential critically oriented design projects in HCI, we articulate some of the trade-offs involved in consciously adopting or not adopting certain normative aspects of HCI evaluation. We argue that some forms of this engagement can hamstring researchers from pursuing their intended research goals and have consequences beyond specific research projects to affect the normative discourse in the field as a whole.
Our on-going field study of FrameCheck, a web browser plug-in that highlights the language of framing in political news, has been covered by the Cornell Chronicle.
If you’d like to try FrameCheck for yourself, you can sign up for the field study.
Baumer, E.P.S. (2015). Reflective Informatics: Conceptual Dimensions for Designing Technologies of Reflection. in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (pp. 585–594). Seoul, South Korea.
Despite demonstrated interest in designing for reflection, relatively little work provides a detailed explication of what exactly is meant by reflection or how to design around it. This paper fills that gap by reviewing and engaging with conceptual and theoretical models of reflection, organized by the disciplinary and epistemological perspectives each embodies. Synthesizing across this theoretical background, the paper identifies three dimensions of reflection: breakdown, inquiry, and transformation. Together, these dimensions serve as the foundation for reflective informatics, a conceptual approach that helps bring clarity and guidance to the discussion of designing for reflection. The paper distinguishes reflective informatics by demonstrating how it both differs from and complements existing related work. Finally, the paper provides a critically reflexive consideration of its own latent assumptions, especially about the value of reflection, and how they might impact work on designing for reflection.