Skip to main content
Log in

Empowering the users? A critical textual analysis of the role of users in open source software development

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper outlines a critical, textual approach for the analysis of the relationship between different actors in information technology (IT) production, and further concretizes the approach in the analysis of the role of users in the open source software (OSS) development literature. Central concepts of the approach are outlined. The role of users is conceptualized as reader involvement aiming to contribute to the configuration of the reader (to how users and the parameters for their work practices are defined in OSS texts). Afterwards, OSS literature addressing reader involvement is critically reviewed. In OSS context, the OSS writers as readers configure the reader and other readers are assumed to be capable of and interested in commenting the texts. A lack of OSS research on non-technical reader involvement is identified. Furthermore, not only are the OSS readers configured, but so are OSS writers. In OSS context while writers may be empowered, this clearly does not apply to the non-technical OSS readers. Implication for research and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term is criticized since it positions people only as users of a ‘particular piece of technology’, even though these people and their motives for interacting with the technology include much more (i.e., they are, e.g., particular types of workers, carrying out their work tasks that in part include also the use of the technology, etc.), which should be acknowledged through the terms used. However, in this paper the OSS users are not known in more detail, due to which the paper settles for the very general term user and prospective term reader (again, people being positioned only as ‘readers of a particular piece of text’).

  2. However, it is acknowledged that the metaphor of text clearly provides only a limited viewpoint to the IT artifact development. The limitations have been summarized, e.g., by Iivari (2006): it is emphasized that the metaphor is a particularly limiting one when applied in the IT artifact use context. “Conceptualizing implementation/adoption/use of IT artifacts as mere ‘reading’ does not do justice to the heterogeneity and multiplicity of material and non-discursive practices and consequences of the implementation/adoption/use of the IT artifacts. IT artifacts are not only texts waiting to be read by the readers, but they are texts that will actually be ‘put in use’ and ‘have effects’ in a much broader sense than, e.g., television programs or advertisements; safety-critical systems could be taken as an extreme example.” (Iivari 2006, p. 192). Therefore, it is acknowledged that people interact with physical items in the world. People (i.e., the users, readers) are not only socially constructed, but they act and interact with each other and with the IT artifacts in the material world. However, in the IT artifact development context the metaphor succeeds in emphasizing very important issues, which will be discussed further in the discussion part of the paper.

  3. ‘Social constructivism’ has been criticized to be an overused and obscure term (see, e.g., Hacking 1999). It is suggested that one could prefer ‘socially produced’ instead (e.g., Hacking 1999), which is done in this paper.

References

  • Akrich M (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology/building society. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 205–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich M, Latour B (1992) A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In: Bijker WE, Law J (eds) Shaping technology/building society. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 259–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez R (2002) Confessions of an information worker: a critical analysis of information requirements discourse. Inf Organ 12(2):85–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen M, Nielsen H, Schrøder S, Stage J (2006) Usability in open source software development: opinions and practice. Inf Technol Control 25(3A):303–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang I (1992) Wanted: audiences. On the politics of empirical audience studies. In: Seiter E, Borchers H, Kreutzner G, Warth E (eds) Remote control. Television, audiences, and cultural power. Routledge, London, pp 96–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Asaro PM (2000) Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Account Manage Inf Technol 10:257–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannon L (1991) From human factors to human actors: the role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in system design. In: Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) Design at work: cooperative design of computer systems. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 25–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck E (2002) P for political. Participation is not enough. Scand J Inf Syst 14(1):77–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson C, Müller-Prove M, Mzourek J (2004) Professional usability in open source projects: GNOME, OpenOffice.org, NetBeans. Extended abstracts of the conference on human factors in computer systems (CHI2004). ACM Press, New York, pp 1083–1084

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergquist M, Ljunberg J (2001) The power of gifts: organizing social relationships in open source communities. Inf Syst J 11:305–320

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1998) Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker W, Hughes T, Pinch T (eds) (1994) The social construction of technological systems. New directions in the sociology and history of technology, 5th printing. The MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Bijker W, Law J (eds) (1992) Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield B, Vurdubakis T (1997) Visions of organization and organizations of vision: the representational practices of information systems development. Account Organ Soc 22(7):639–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bødker M, Nielsen L, Orngreen R (2007) Enabling user-centered design processes in open source communities. In: Aykin N (ed) Proc. human computer interaction international, part I: usability and internationalization. LNCS, vol 4559. Springer, Berlin, pp 10–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey C (1999) “Come join our family” discipline and integration in corporate organizational culture. Hum Relat 52(2):155–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin G, Verzulli D, Frings S (2007) An analysis of involvement of HCI experts in distributed software development: practical issues. In: Schuler D (ed) Proc. human computer interaction international: online communities and social computing. LNCS, vol 4564. Springer, Berlin, pp 32–40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clement A (1994) Computing at work: empowering action by 'low-level users'. Commun ACM 37(1):52–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford J (1988) The predicament of culture. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford J, Marcus G (eds) (1986) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper C, Bowers J (1995) Representing the users: notes on the disciplinary rhetoric of human-computer interaction. In: Thomas P (ed) The social and interactional dimensions of human-computer interfaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 48–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander L, Magnusson M (2005) Relationships between open source software companies and communities: observations from Nordic firms. Res Policy 34:481–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Damodaran L (1996) User involvement in the systems design process—a practical guide for users. Behav Inf Technol 15(16):363–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deetz S (1996) Describing differences in approaches to organization science: rethinking burrell and morgan and their legacy. Organ Sci 7(2):191–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divitini M, Jaccheri L, Monteiro E, Traetteberg H (2003) Open source processes: no place for politics? In: Feller J, Fitzgerald B, Hissam S, Lakhani K (eds) Taking stock of the Bazaar. Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on open source software engineering. co-located with ICSE’ 03, 3 May 2003, Portland, OR, USA, IEEE Computer Society press, New York pp 39–44

  • Feller J, Fitzgerald B (2000) A framework analysis of the open source development paradigm. In: Proc. of 21st international conference on information systems, Brisbane, Australia, December 10–13, 2000, pp 58–69

  • Fiske J (1987) Television culture. Routlege, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B (2006) The transformation of open source software. MIS Q 30(3):587–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke N, von Hippel E (2003) Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software. Res Policy 32:1199–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frishberg N, Dirks AM, Benson C, Nickel S, Smith S (2002) Getting to know you: open source development meets usability. Extended abstracts of the conference on human factors in computer systems (CHI 2002). ACM Press, New York, pp 932–933

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge X, Dong Y, Huang K (2006) Shared knowledge construction in an open-source software development community: an investigation of the gallery community. In: Proceedings of the international conference on learning sciences. June 27–July 1, 2006. Bloomigton, USA, pp 189–195

  • Glass R (2003) A sociopolitical look at open source. Commun ACM 46(11):21–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) (1991) Design at work. Cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Grint K, Woolgar S (1997) The machine at work. Technology, work and organization. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking I (1999) The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall S (1980) ‘Encoding/decoding’. In: Hall S, Hobson D, Lowe A, Willis P (eds) Culture, media, language: working papers in cultural studies 1972–79. Hutchinson, London, pp 128–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall S (ed) (1997) Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy C, Leiba-O’Sullivan S (1998) The power behind empowerment: implications for research and practice. Hum Relat 51(4):451–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikinheimo H, Kuusisto T (2004) The use of embedded open source software in commercial products. In: Proc. of the 13th European conference on information systems (ECIS2004), Turku, Finland, June 14–16, 2004

  • Hirschheim R, Klein H (1989) Four paradigms of information systems development. Commun ACM 32(10):1199–1216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howcroft D, Wilson M (2003) Paradoxes of participatory practices: the Janus role of the systems developer. Inf Organ 13:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iivari N (2006) Understanding the work of an HCI practitioner. In: Proc. 4th Nordic conference on human computer interaction, Oslo, Norway, pp 185–194

  • Kirsch LJ, Beath CM (1996) The enactments and consequences of token, shared, and compliant participation in information systems development. Account Manage Inf Technol 6(4):221–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala S (2003) User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol 22(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani K, von Hippel E (2003) How open source software works: ‘free’ user-to-user assistance? Res Policy 32:923–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 225–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Ljungberg J (2000) Open source movements as a model for organizing. Eur J Inf Syst 9(4):208–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luke R, Clement A, Terada R, Bortolussi D, Booth C, Brooks D, Christ D (2004) The promise and perils of a participatory approach to developing an open source community learning network. In: Proc. participatory design conference, ACM, New York, pp 11–19

  • Mackay H, Carne C, Beynon-Davies P, Tudhope D (2000) Reconfiguring the user: using rapid application development. Soc Stud Sci 30(5):737–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (eds) (1985) The social shaping of technology. How the refrigerator got its hum. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus M, Mao Y (2004) User participation in development and implementation: updating an old tired concept for today’s is contexts. J Assoc Inf Syst 5(11–12):514–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan G (1986) Images of organization. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley D (1992) Changing paradigms in audience studies. In: Seiter E, Borchers H, Kreutzner G, Warth E (eds) Remote control. Television, audiences and cultural power. Routledge, London, pp 16–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford E (1983) Designing human systems for new technology. The ETHICS method. Manchester Business School, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols D, Twidale M (2003) The usability of open source software. First Monday 8(1):21

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols D, Twidale M (2006) Usability processes in open source projects. Softw Process Improv Pract 11:149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niederman F, Davis A, Greiner M, Wynn D, York P (2006) A research agenda for studying open source I: a multilevel framework. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 18:129–149

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor E (1995) Paradoxes of participation: textual analysis and organizational change. Organ Stud 16(5):769–803

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski W, Iacano C (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inf Syst Res 12(2):121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski W, Baroudi J (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Inf Syst Res 2(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch T, Bijker W (1994) The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: Bijker W, Hughes T, Pinch T (eds) The social construction of technological systems. New directions in the sociology and history of technology, 5th printing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 399–441

  • Sack W, Detienne F, Ducheneaut N, Burkhardt J, Mahendran D, Barcellini F (2006) A methodological framework for socio-cognitive analyses of collaborative design of open source software. Comput Suppor Collab Work 15:229–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkkinen J, Karsten H (2005) Verbal and visual representations in task redesign: how different viewpoints enter into information systems design discussions. Inf Syst J 15(3):181–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer K, Harvey L (1997) Empowerment in business process reengineering: an ethnographic study of implementation discourse. In: Proc. 18th international conference on information systems, Atlanta, USA, pp 427–440

  • Scacchi W (2002) Understanding the requirements for developing open source software systems. IEE Proc Softw 149(1):24–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinuzzi C (2002) A Scandinavian challenge, a US response: methodological assumptions in Scandinavian and US prototyping approaches. In: Proc. SIGDOC 2002, pp 208–215

  • Steward K, Gosain S (2006) The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. MIS Q 30(2):291–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L, Blomberg J, Orr J, Trigg R (1999) Reconstructing technologies as social practice. Am Behav Sci 43(3):392–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symon G (1998) The work of IT system developers in context: an organizational case study. Hum Comput Interact 13(1):37–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi I (2001) Internet, innovation, and open source: actors in the network. First Monday 6(1):34

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman A (1994) The yellow brock road: total quality management and the restructuring of organizational culture. Organ Stud 15(5):727–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twidale M, Nichols D (2005) Exploring usability discussions in open source development. In: Proc. 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences HICSS, IEEE

  • Weedon C (1987) Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Weedon C (2004) Identity and culture: narratives of difference and belonging. Open University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams R, Edge D (1996) The social shaping of technology. Res Policy 25:865–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson M (2002) Rhetoric of enrollment and acts of resistance: information technology as text. In: Wynn E, Whitley E, Myers M, DeGross J (eds) Global and organizational discourse about information technology. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 225–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Viorres N, Xenofon P, Stavrakis M, Vlanhogiannis E, Koutsabasis P, Darzentas J (2007) Major HCI challenges for open source software adoption and development. In: Schuler D (ed) Proc. human computer interaction international: online communities and social computing. LNCS, vol 4564. Springer, Berlin, pp 455–464

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ye Y, Kishida K (2003) Toward an understanding of the motivation of open source software developers. In: Proc. 25th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), IEEE, pp 419–429

  • Zbaracki M (1998) The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Adm Sci Q 43(3):602–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao L, Deek F (2005) Improving open source software usability. In: Proc. of the 11th Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS2005), Omaha, USA, August 11–14, pp 923–928

  • Zhao L, Deek F (2006) Exploratory inspection: a learning model for improving open source software usability. Extended abstracts of the conference on human factors in computer systems (CHI 2002). ACM Press, New York, pp 1589–1594

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao L, Elbaum S (2003) Quality assurance under the open source development model. J Syst Softw 66(1):65–75

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Especially I thank the anonymous reviewer, who emphasized the acknowledgment of the limits and problems of social constructivism and the metaphor of text, and who suggested to use the more appropriate term ‘(more or less) socially produced reader’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Netta Iivari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iivari, N. Empowering the users? A critical textual analysis of the role of users in open source software development. AI & Soc 23, 511–528 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-008-0182-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-008-0182-1

Keywords

Navigation