Ron Day Wayne State University Elisabeth Davenport Napier University Leah Lievrouw University of California, Los Angeles Howard Rosenbaum Indiana University The Death of the User Image:

Rosenbaum A eulogy for the user in LIS research Howard Rosenbaum Image: members.bellatlantic.net/~gregoryw/ mothchld.html

Rosenbaum In LIS research, the concept of the “ user ” has served us well It has Informed theory and methodology in LIS Become a taken-for-granted component of LIS research and education and Influenced LIS practitioners Clearly, much has been gained intellectually and practically from this emphasis on the user From improvements in the design and use of ICTs to enhancements in library services for patrons

Rosenbaum The “ user ” led a rich and fruitful life in LIS We study the social world at many different levels of analysis We investigate questions from individual, group, system, institutional, and societal points of view At individual and system levels of analysis, the concept of the “ user ” has been critical The “ user turn ” in LIS underway in the mid 80s, was most clearly articulated by Dervin and Nilan (1986), Taylor (1986), Hewitt (19990) and others

Rosenbaum This approach has helped understand how people interact with computers What makes interfaces easy to use How to improve the ergonomics of routine computing It has helped us understand information retrieval, seeking and use How people search for, manipulate, use, and disseminate information How people use systems

Rosenbaum Why are we gathered here to celebrate the death of the user? The “ cash value ” of the concept of the user has reached a point of marginal or diminishing returns in LIS research How has this happened? It has become clear that many ICTs do not work well for their intended audiences There is a rich history of costly information systems failures in corporate, educational, and governmental organizations (Kling et al., 2000)

Rosenbaum Lamb and Kling (2002) trace the concept of the user in IS research to Simon (1955) This user is an atomic individual The construct has well-articulated preferences and the ability to exercise discretion in ICT choice and use, within certain cognitive limits Information from objects, environment, and other users is cognitively processed as feedback to fine- tune the preferences that influence ICT use There are costs to the uncritical adoption of this approach: “ Researchers implicitly agree to model an artificially constrained set of contextual factors in controlled experimental settings, or to leave context outside the study entirely

Rosenbaum Further: “ ICT designs … based on the ‘ user ’ concept may be inadequate, dehumanizing or disruptive to cohesive, productive working contexts ” User studies do not scale up well to organizational or industry levels

Rosenbaum Problems with the concept of the user have been discussed in the literatures of several fields Information systems: Grudin, 1990; Beath and Orlikowski, 1994; Westrup, 1997; Salzman, 1998 Systems based on this concept have had limited usefulness HCI/CSCW: Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991; Nardi and Miller, 1991; Gutwin and Greenberg, 1998; Guzdial et al., 2000 Participatory design is an implicit challenge to the concept of the user

Rosenbaum This concept has been at the root of many LIS studies of ICT and the people who use them Typically, these studies rely on individualistic cognitive models to examine the criteria that influence people ’ s selections and uses of ICT They focus on the exchanges and interactions between the person and the system they are using Findings tell us how well the system performs and about the person ’ s experience using the system They also tell us about the choices a person makes about what ICTs to use, and how and when to use them

Rosenbaum The concept does not adequately represent the complex social setting of the typical “ organizational individual ” This person is enmeshed in a sociotechnical web which has cultural, political, and economic elements He or she is a typical user of ICT as a routine element of work Typically this use takes place in groups The concept of the “ user ” does not have good predictive ability when it is aggregated to explain organizational ICT use One reason is that is systematically excludes these sociotechnical elements

Rosenbaum Social informatics tells us of the importance of the contexts that shape ICT use These social and organizational contexts constrain and enable individuals using ICTs It emphasizes the importance of organizational structures and complex social environments in the design, implementation, and use of ICT