The study of computer use has been a topic within HCI and IS studies for three decades.
Inquiries, evaluations and studies of how various types of computer tools and media are used are at the very heart of HCI. This is reflected in the increasing number of
ethnographically informed studies about how computers and telephones are used (Finken, 2000; Forsyth, 1999; Hughes et al., 1994; Orr, 1996).
Gasser describes the use of computers in the context of work (Gasser, 1986) within an organization. The primary work is, according to Gasser, normally not to operate computers, but computers are operated in order to do work. Use is defined by Gasser in the following way:
…any employment of computer-based information or analysis in the performance of other tasks. Thus, computer use presumes the existence of other work – namely, the primary work of the computer “user”. On the basis of this definition, the use of computing is embedded in a context of many other tasks. Computing itself is usually a resource which supports the other tasks. It is difficult to imagine (or to locate in an organization) uses of computing which exist for their own sake… In most cases, it is fair to say that at least a component of most computing is a rational attempt to employ computing as a resource for action. (Gasser, 1986) The use of computers is seen in association with work. Usually, the “primary work” of the user is not directly about the computer, but something else, as noted by Gasser, accounting being one example. Bratteteig elaborates upon the observation that use can be more broadly defined.
Use is more than operating a computer; it is embedded in work and in the way we think and act in work. Use is usually not the primary interest of the user: while writing this text, typing is not my focus – the computer and its text-processing program is a way to perform writing. I write with pen and paper and I write with the computer – pen and paper are the easier way to create a sequential structure for a text, the computer (and the printer) is the easier way to produce a text product. (Bratteteig, 2003)
Hence, the way computers are “operated” (or any other technology like pen and paper) influences the activity or the work. It is different to write with pen and paper, than with a word processor, according to Bratteteig. In order to find out what the differences are, the study of particular use situations is necessary, and this is done by various case studies, again according to Bratteteig (Bratteteig, 2003). The phenomenon of computer use can be studied empirically by investigating particular users, in specific situations and with concrete technologies. Thoresen (Thoresen, 1999) describes the importance of investigating the individual user with specific use patterns:
Work practice involves operating the system for the purpose of the user’s primary work. Each user has a specific use pattern, which denotes how often she uses the system, which function/parts of the system she uses, and how frequent/infrequent each function is used. (Thoresen, 1999)
The awareness that use is “situated” in a specific context is acknowledged by many.
However, according to Thoresen, understanding the situatedness of the computer use is still limited.
Still, many usability studies are weak in understanding the situatedness of computer use. They are well aware of the user as a person in front of the
computer, but they tend to see this person not as “somebody who works”, but as a
“perceptual and cognitive human being”. She has visions, muscles, problems solving capabilities, etc., but the work for which she will use these capabilities is downplayed. (Thoresen, 1999) (italics mine)
Said differently, the use of computers is about what the user wants to perform or do with the computer – in particular situations, contexts or circumstances. It is misleading to imagine any “use” of a computer that has no “purpose” at all, and this is what Thoresen is addressing.
What can we accomplish by studying the use of computers? First of all, it is an underlying assumption that in order to make or design something which is usable and useful, it is necessary to understand use and the situations of use. This makes any inquiry into the use of computers potentially valuable, in the hopes of making designs “better”
i.e. more useful, usable and appropriate for the user in the future situations. Secondly, the
study of use is important on its own terms. It provides the condition for the possibility to gain insight, understanding or knowledge about the more general phenomenon of using technology. Since computers are used in contemporary lives in so many different ways, by so many different people, in so many situations – the phenomenon of computer use is worthy of investigation and research on its own terms.
What perspectives are available for describing use? One of the challenges this thesis addresses is that the phenomenon of use is ubiquitous. We use words as well as concrete artifacts in our everyday life, and it is difficult to imagine a situation where there is no use. During the day we use letters, words, clothes, computers and telephones, and during the night most probably a bed and a shelter. At this very moment, you are probably using a chair and pieces of paper or a screen in order to read these words. This type of use is ubiquitous, in the sense of taking place in everyday situations. More interestingly, it is also something which is far away for us – and difficult to see.
Our relation to the obvious is always dull and dumb. The path to what lies under our nose is always the furthest and hence the most difficult path for us humans.
(Heidegger, 1996)
“Use” is one of these words, concepts and phenomena which “lies under our nose”, and according to Heidegger also furthest away from us. This does not mean that it is unimportant. It is also important to investigate and shed light on phenomena of use that are obvious.
There are some inherent challenges in approaching the phenomenon of use. It is difficult to get outside of the activity of use, since, again, the use of equipment is very much part of being human. It is a relationship between us and the environment. Hence, the activity of use is not an external phenomenon that can best be described and presented from a detached position. However, it is possible as researchers to suggest and pursue various paths in order to observe, describe, and analyze the phenomenon of use.
There are indeed many different reasons for using computers today. The question of why computers are used can be answered in many different ways. Some tentative answers are attempted below:
x The computer is used in order to get a job done, or to perform some task. When writing a letter, for example, a computer is used in order to compose, store and edit the text.
x A computer is in use, because the user “has” to use it; it is part of the job description to use computers. In order to keep up to date with the job, the user is told by the organization to use this or that computer.
x “Computers save time”. In order to collect and distribute information, it is more efficient and effective to use a computer than, for example, paper-based systems or orally based ways of working with information.
x “Computers save money”. It is simply more cost effective to use a computer than it is to use other, traditional technologies such as pen and paper.
x “I do not know – but nevertheless I use a computer”.
x The use of the computer satisfies human needs, such as the need for staying in touch with friends and family and colleagues or even the need for safety when, for example, in a boat on an open sea.
Hence, there are many possible answers to this question about why people use computers.
The perspective that the use of computers satisfies human needs will be examined and explored in the last section of this chapter. But before embarking on this, I will present a relational perspective on use.