Structure versus Context: Understanding the Design and Use of Computer Tools in Social Settings - application of folkloristic elements in computer software

Library Trends, Wntr, 1999 by Kevin Powell

INTRODUCTION

A hammer is a good tool, well honed and continually adapted for millennia. In some ways it represents the ultimate in a tool but, in a very real sense, it demonstrates a tradeoff in how tools are used and adapted in context versus the broader use of a hammer as a general tool. The importance of the hammer is that it is broadly used outside its intended design and, even when it is being used inside its designed or designated realm, it still may not fit the tasks for which it is being used very well.

An example of this might be when it is needed in a tight corner at the intersection of two walls. It is possible to build a special hammer that would operate optimally in such a tight situation, but the economics of the situation do not justify this new tool (i.e., the tool is not general enough to sell large numbers, and the cost of the tool is not low enough to make its purchase viably incidental). Almost any artifact produced for broad consumption faces the dilemma of fit to task versus cost of development and maintenance. One of the ways to ameliorate this problem is to try to understand the context of use more clearly when designing a tool. Folkloristics, with its investigation of both cross-situational structure and contextual understanding of folkways, suggests ways to consider electronic tools in a community context.

Based on the metaphor of software as a tool, this article focuses on an understanding of how software is used in context and the difficult nature of building such tools contextually in a world of limited resources.

FOLKLORE AND THE DESIGN OF COMPUTER ARTIFACTS

The hammer is a tool familiar to many folk groups and is a part of different folkways. Not surprisingly, computer software is equally embedded in current folkways. Furthermore, many systems have failed because they do not take into account the folkways in which they are to be embedded (Star & Ruhleder, 1996; Gasser, 1986). This lack of attention to the context of use becomes a major hindrance to the acceptance of these systems. In a sense, the designs of many systems are coming from a structuralist viewpoint--i.e., they are designed for broad categories of use and gloss over, or ignore, the context of the particular setting.

STRUCTURALISM/CONTEXTUALISM AND SOFTWARE DESIGN

   A folklorist who limits his analysis to identification [of motifs/patterns]
   has stopped before asking any really important questions about his
   material. (Dundes, 1990, p. 52)

Alan Dundes starts his discussion of the study of folklore in literature and culture by trying to resolve the dichotomy of interpretation and identification. He does so by treating interpretation and identification as vitally complementary tools. When used together they give both the anthropological and textual folklorist a much more rigorous understanding of the materials they study. The anthropological folklorist can run the risk of misidentification of a folktale or element because of an unfamiliarity with the vast identified body of cross culturally analyzed materials which she may see as being unique to a context of activity or expression. Conversely, the textual folklorist errs when she identifies materials as being just another variant, losing all the vitality and particular meaning of the material in its original context of use. This argument applies equally to the design realm of software tools. Designers have fixated on the more readily quantifiable aspects of systems, largely ignoring the context of their use and the potential power of a tool properly fit into a set of tasks and folkways.

THE STRUCTURALISTS SPEAK

   [WI hat gives the myth all operative value is that the specific pattern
   described is everlasting; it explains the present and the past as well as
   the future. (Levi-Strauss, 1972, p. 173)

   Whatever our ignorance of the language and culture of the people where it
   originated, a myth is still felt as a myth by any reader throughout the
   world. (Levi-Strauss, 1972, p. 174)

The above quotes are meant to speak for an intellectual traditional structuralism that seeks to understand narrative forms in terms of an overarching set of structures. Levi-Strauss and others take this analysis to its logical extreme, arguing that--like language as studied by linguists--narratives can be decomposed into elements that can be analyzed across vast gulfs of culture and geography. The power of abstracting away so many details to expose a core narrative is the production of an elemental currency that can be exchanged across many different arenas of discourse. This sort of analysis provides us with a framework that is more amenable to the designer of software due to its highly structural abstractions than are qualitative/situated methods of analysis. However, a purely structural approach is fundamentally unable to provide us with a full appreciation of narrative and setting. It fails in elucidating the narrative's full role and uses, especially the pragmatics of its day-to-day existence as a living cultural tool.