skip to main content
research-article

Tech Worker Perspectives on Considering the Interpersonal Implications of Communication Technologies

Published:29 December 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Communication technologies, from social media to video conferencing, are used by billions of people globally and contribute to shaping relationships between people. As these technologies become increasingly ubiquitous, the tech workers building them are increasingly making product decisions that can have far-reaching interpersonal ramifications. At the same time, few workplace tools and support exist to help tech workers understand and navigate these potential ramifications, and tech worker perspectives on such tools are not fully understood. In this work, we explore the needs, challenges, and opportunities encountered by tech workers in thinking through the interpersonal implications of their products. To do this, we ran a semi-structured interview study with 10 diverse tech workers. To ground the discussion, study participants interacted with a design probe prototype, InterAct, which provides research-grounded information about interpersonal implications of product features. Our findings suggest a desire by tech workers to consider the social implications of the technologies they build, and the potential for structured tooling to help provide the required knowledge and build organizational support. Based on these findings, we provide design considerations for creating future workplace tools to support thinking about the social implications of technologies.

References

  1. Adobe. 2015. Captivate Prime. https://www.adobe.com/products/captivateprime.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ien Ang. 1991. Desperately seeking the audience. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniel Ashbrook and Thad Starner. 2010. MAGIC: a motion gesture design tool. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2159--2168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Atlassian. 2008. Bitbucket. https://bitbucket.org/productGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1301--1310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Nancy K Baym. 2015. Personal connections in the digital age. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nancy K Baym, Yan Bing Zhang, Adrianne Kunkel, Andrew Ledbetter, and Mei-Chen Lin. 2007. Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, Vol. 9, 5 (2007), 735--752.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Gary Bente, Sabine Rüggenberg, Nicole C Kr"amer, and Felix Eschenburg. 2008. Avatar-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research , Vol. 34, 2 (2008), 287--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Aditya Bharadwaj, Pao Siangliulue, Adam Marcus, and Kurt Luther. 2019. Critter: Augmenting Creative Work with Dynamic Checklists, Automated Quality Assurance, and Contextual Reviewer Feedback. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 539.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Nadine Bol, Tobias Dienlin, Sanne Kruikemeier, Marijn Sax, Sophie C Boerman, Joanna Strycharz, Natali Helberger, and Claes H De Vreese. 2018. Understanding the effects of personalization as a privacy calculus: analyzing self-disclosure across health, news, and commerce contexts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 23, 6 (2018), 370--388.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Natilene Bowker and Keith Tuffin. 2003. Dicing with deception: People with disabilities' strategies for managing safety and identity online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 8, 2 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Danah Boyd. 2010. Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In A networked self. Routledge, 47--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sketch B.V. 2010. Sketch. https://www.sketch.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Scott E Caplan. 2005. A social skill account of problematic Internet use. Journal of Communication , Vol. 55, 4 (2005), 721--736.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Justine Cassell and Dona Tversky. 2005. The language of online intercultural community formation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 10, 2 (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Xiang'Anthony' Chen, Jeeeun Kim, Jennifer Mankoff, Tovi Grossman, Stelian Coros, and Scott E Hudson. 2016. Reprise: A design tool for specifying, generating, and customizing 3D printable adaptations on everyday objects. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 29--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Shruthi Sai Chivukula, Ziqing Li, Anne C Pivonka, Jingning Chen, and Colin M Gray. 2021. Surveying the Landscape of Ethics-Focused Design Methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08909 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ronald Chung, Petrut Mirica, and Beryl Plimmer. 2005. InkKit: a generic design tool for the tablet PC. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand Chapter's International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Making CHI Natural. 29--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Max T Curran and John Chuang. 2022. Social Distancing and Social Biosensing: Intersubjectivity from Afar. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (2022), 1--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenny L Davis and Nathan Jurgenson. 2014. Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, communication & society , Vol. 17, 4 (2014), 476--485.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Daantje Derks, Arjan ER Bos, and Jasper Von Grumbkow. 2007. Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: the importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 23, 1 (2007), 842--849.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Docebo. 2017. Docebo LMS. https://learningpool.com/solutions/learning-experience-platform-stream/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Judith Donath. 1999. Identity and deception in the virtual community. In Communities in Cyberspace, , Marc A Smith and Peter Kollock (Eds.). Routledge, 29--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Pelle Ehn, Elisabet M Nilsson, and Richard Topgaard. 2014. Making futures: marginal notes on innovation, design, and democracy. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Nicole B Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. 2011. Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, Vol. 13, 6 (2011), 873--892.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Jerry Fails and Dan Olsen. 2003. A design tool for camera-based interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 449--456.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Norman Fairclough. 2013. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-Sensitive Design. Interactions, Vol. 3, 6 (1996), 16--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Batya Friedman and David G Hendry. 2019. Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Christian Fuchs. 2014. Social media: A critical introduction. SAGE Publications Limited.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Atul Gawande. 2010. Checklist manifesto, the (HB). Penguin Books India.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumeé III, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09010 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Inc. GitHub. 2008. GitHub. https://github.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Barney G Glaser and Anselm L Strauss. 2017. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Erving Goffman et al. 1978. The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Google. 2012. Google Drive. https://drive.google.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Sherri Grasmuck, Jason Martin, and Shanyang Zhao. 2009. Ethno-racial identity displays on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 15, 1 (2009), 158--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Colin M Gray and Shruthi Sai Chivukula. 2019. Ethical mediation in UX practice. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Daniel Greene, Anna Lauren Hoffmann, and Luke Stark. 2019. Better, Nicer, Clearer, Fairer: A Critical Assessment of the Movement for Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.258Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Brigette M Hales and Peter J Pronovost. 2006. The checklist-a tool for error management and performance improvement. Journal of Critical Care , Vol. 21, 3 (2006), 231--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Jeffrey T Hancock, Jennifer Thom-Santelli, and Thompson Ritchie. 2004. Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 129--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Lee Bee Hian, Sim Li Chuan, Tan Mon Kiat Trevor, and Benjamin H Detenber. 2004. Getting to know you: Exploring the development of relational intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 9, 3 (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Otmar Hilliges, Lucia Terrenghi, Sebastian Boring, David Kim, Hendrik Richter, and Andreas Butz. 2007. Designing for collaborative creative problem solving. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition. 137--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Courtenay Honeycutt. 2005. Hazing as a process of boundary maintenance in an online community. Journal of computer-mediated communication , Vol. 10, 2 (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Figma Inc. 2016. Figma. https://www.figma.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. InVisionApp. 2011. InVision. https://www.invisionapp.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Mikkel R Jakobsen and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. Negotiating for Space?: Collaborative Work Using a Wall Display with Mouse and Touch Input.. In CHI, Vol. 16. 2050--2061.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Aneta Karasek. 2019. IT tools supporting employee management in a high-tech enterprise. Applied Computer Science , Vol. 15, 1 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Jeeeun Kim, Qingnan Zhou, Amanda Ghassaei, and Xiang'Anthony' Chen. 2021. OmniSoft: A Design Tool for Soft Objects by Example. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Cliff Lampe, Paul Zube, Jusil Lee, Chul Hyun Park, and Erik Johnston. 2014. Crowdsourcing civility: A natural experiment examining the effects of distributed moderation in online forums. Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 31, 2 (2014), 317--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Jason Leigh and Andrew E Johnson. 1996. Supporting transcontinental collaborative work in persistent virtual environments. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , Vol. 16, 4 (1996), 47--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Mark L Lengnick-Hall and Steve Moritz. 2003. The impact of e-HR on the human resource management function. Journal of Labor Research , Vol. 24, 3 (2003), 365--379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Jiahao Li, Jeeeun Kim, and Xiang'Anthony' Chen. 2019. Robiot: A Design Tool for Actuating Everyday Objects with Automatically Generated 3D Printable Mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 673--685.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Eden Litt and Eszter Hargittai. 2016. The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media Society, Vol. 2, 1 (2016), 2056305116633482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Michael Xieyang Liu, Jane Hsieh, Nathan Hahn, Angelina Zhou, Emily Deng, Shaun Burley, Cynthia Taylor, Aniket Kittur, and Brad A Myers. 2019. Unakite: Scaffolding Developers' Decision-Making Using the Web. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 67--80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Alfred Lua. 2022. 20 Top Social Media Sites to Consider for Your Brand in 2022. https://buffer.com/library/social-media-sites/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Michael A Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Co-designing checklists to understand organizational challenges and opportunities around fairness in [AI]. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Noëmi Manders-Huits and Michael Zimmer. 2009. Values and pragmatic action: The challenges of introducing ethical intelligence in technical design communities. The International Review of Information Ethics , Vol. 10 (2009), 37--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Alice E Marwick. 2010. Status update: Celebrity, publicity and self-branding in Web 2.0. Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Alice E Marwick and danah boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, Vol. 13, 1 (2011), 114--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. J Nathan Matias. 2019. Preventing harassment and increasing group participation through social norms in 2,190 online science discussions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116, 20 (2019), 9785--9789.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, and danah boyd. 2019. Owning Ethics: Corporate Logics, Silicon Valley, and the Institutionalization of Ethics. Social Research: An International Quarterly , Vol. 82, 2 (2019), 449----476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Microsoft. 2007. OneDrive. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/onedrive/online-cloud-storageGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Microsoft. 2017. Teams. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/group-chat-softwareGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Bonnie A Nardi. 2005. Beyond bandwidth: Dimensions of connection in interpersonal communication. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) , Vol. 14, 2 (2005), 91--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Safiya Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Pattie Odgers. 1997. The Information Workplace: Training the InfoTech Worker. Issues and Instructional Delivery Examined. (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Thomas Olsson, Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, Paweł Wo'zniak, Susanna Paasovaara, Kaisa V"a"an"anen, and Andrés Lucero. 2020. Technologies for Enhancing Collocated Social Interaction: Review of Design Solutions and Approaches. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) , Vol. 29, 1 (2020), 29--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Wanda J Orlikowski. 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, Vol. 3, 3 (1992), 398--427.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Learning Pool. 2015. Stream LXP. https://learningpool.com/solutions/learning-experience-platform-stream/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Anabel Quan-Haase, Joseph Cothrel, and Barry Wellman. 2005. Instant messaging for collaboration: A case study of a high-tech firm. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 10, 4 (2005).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Janet C Read, Matthew Horton, Gavin Sim, Peggy Gregory, Daniel Fitton, and Brendan Cassidy. 2013. CHECk: a tool to inform and encourage ethical practice in participatory design with children. In CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 187--192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Daniel Saakes and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2009. A tangible design tool for sketching materials in products. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM, Vol. 23, 3 (2009), 275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Corina Sas, Kobi Hartley, and Muhammad Umair. 2020. ManneqKit Cards: A Kinesthetic Empathic Design Tool Communicating Depression Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1479--1493.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Samantha Schmidt. 2017. `I'm not a sexist': Fired Google engineer stands behind controversial memo. Washington Post (2017). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/10/im-not-a-sexist-fired-google-engineer-stands-behind-controversial-memo/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Nathan Schneider, Primavera De Filippi, Seth Frey, Joshua Z Tan, and Amy X Zhang. 2021. Modular Politics: Toward a Governance Layer for Online Communities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.13701 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Michael Scriven. 2000. The logic and methodology of checklists. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.588.7093&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed: 2021-03--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Katie Shilton. 2013. Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design. Science, Technology, & Human Values , Vol. 38, 3 (May 2013), 374--397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912436985Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Janet Sternberg. 2012. Misbehavior in cyber places: The regulation of online conduct in virtual communities on the Internet. Rowman & Littlefield.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Jason Stewart, Benjamin B Bederson, and Allison Druin. 1999. Single display groupware: a model for co-present collaboration. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 286--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Balsamiq Studios. 2008. Balsamiq Wireframes. https://balsamiq.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Adobe Systems. 2016. Adobe XD. https://www.adobe.com/products/xd.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Slack Technologies. 2013. Slack. https://slack.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Siva Vaidhyanathan. 2018. Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. José van Dijck. 2013. Facebook and the engineering of connectivity: A multi-layered approach to social media platforms. Convergence, Vol. 19, 2 (2013), 141--155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856512457548Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Barry Wellman, Janet Salaff, Dimitrina Dimitrova, Laura Garton, Milena Gulia, and Caroline Haythornthwaite. 1996. Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology , Vol. 22, 1 (1996), 213--238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Renwen Zhang and Jiawei Sophia Fu. 2020. Privacy Management and Self-Disclosure on Social Network Sites: The Moderating Effects of Stress and Gender. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 25, 3 (2020), 236--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. Zoom. 2020a. 90-Day Security Plan Progress Report: April 22. https://blog.zoom.us/90-day-security-plan-progress-report-april-22/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Zoom. 2020b. A Message to Our Users. https://blog.zoom.us/a-message-to-our-users/ ioGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Tech Worker Perspectives on Considering the Interpersonal Implications of Communication Technologies

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 7, Issue GROUP
      GROUP
      January 2023
      414 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3578937
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 29 December 2022
      Published in pacmhci Volume 7, Issue GROUP

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader