Lela MosemghvdlishviliIBCoM Honor’s Program

Shaping of ‘persuasive’ technologies: gate-keeping and gender

Guest Lecture

9 May 2014

Agenda

Defining persuasive technologies

Shaping of mobile Technologies(break)

Gender and mobile technologies

persuasive technologies

‘persuasion’ refers to an act of communication […] as holding the middle between ‘manipulation’ and ‘convincing’.

Spahn (2011)

persuasive technologies are: “designed to change what people think and do”

BJ Fogg (2002)

persuasive technologies (2)

BJ Fogg (2002)

persuasive apps

Most present to change:

• Consumption patterns• Health & Fitness behavior• Education• Political Communication

persuasive apps (2)

When persuasion moves from rhetoric into technology, how does it change role of technologies?

What is the relationship to user’s autonomy?

1. Persuasion should be based on prior (real or counterfactual) consent.

2. Ideally the aim of persuasion should be to end the persuasion.

3. Persuasion should grant as much autonomy as possible to the user

(influenced by J. Habermas ideas)

3 ethical guidelines to distinguish persuasion from manipulation (Spahn, 2011)

“Our lab’s director, BJ Fogg, predicts that in 10-15 years mobile phones will be the primary platform for changing people’s attitudes and behaviors, surpassing the persuasive power of TV, radio, and the web — combined.” (quote from the website)

mobile persuasion

• how is current ‘mobile’ (smartphones) shaped?

• who has decision-making power?

What makes a phone smart?

distinct features

1. Programmability (Operating System, Apps)

2. Sensing abilities (GPS, Accelerometer)

3. Continuous internet connectivity (3,4G, Wi-Fi)

• Implications for the market ?

Why code/software/apps mater?

• defines (novel) functionality of a device

App ‘revolution’: looking back at short history of smartphones

Apple released iPhone with preinstalled apps only Critiques call it iBrick (Zittrain, 2008)

• Jail-breaking of iPhones• Apple releases SDK (Software Development Kit)

• Google enters mobile ecosystem with Android (selectively open source)

A study: Negotiability of Technology and its limitations: Politics of App development (Mosemghvdlishvili & Jansz)

Theoretical framework

Social Shaping of Technologyemphasizing social contingency of technology

negotiabilitycentral concept

• a range of ‘choices’• relevant groups

• closure however

• asymmetries in power• irreversibility & foreclosed choices

Methodology and data

20 semi-structured online interviews (average: 50 minutes)

Participants: developers from 12 countries (Asia, Europe,

Americas) average age: 29 absolute majority: male (19) highly educated

Developers(expert users?)

manufacturers carriers

OS providers

Relevant groups involved

Respondents views on role and power of developers and other groups

OS Company Software Licensing Type

Programming Language

Distribution platform (App markets)

Review process

Developers’ costs to distribute through App markets

Share of sales price kept by the distributor

iOS Apple Proprietary (with some open source components)

Objective-C Exclusively App Store

Yes Annual fee $99/year

30%

Android Google Free and open source (Apache License)

Java Android Marketplace (and alternative markets)

No Onetime payment $25

0

Windows Phone

Microsoft Proprietary .NET, Silverlight/XNA

Windows Phone Marketplace

Yes Annual fee $99 30%

BlackBerry OS

RIM Proprietary Java BlackBerry App World

Yes free 20%

Symbian Accenture (Nokia)

Open source (Eclipse Public License)

C++ Ovi Store Yes Onetime payment $1

30%

OS Company Software Licensing Type

Programming Language

Distribution platform (App markets)

Review process

Developers’ costs to distribute through App markets

Share of sales price kept by the distributor

iOS Apple Proprietary (with some open source components)

Objective-C Exclusively App Store

Yes Annual fee $99/year

30%

Android Google Free and open source (Apache License)

Java Android Marketplace (and alternative markets)

No Onetime payment $25

0

Windows Phone

Microsoft Proprietary .NET, Silverlight/XNA

Windows Phone Marketplace

Yes Annual fee $99 30%

BlackBerry OS

RIM Proprietary Java BlackBerry App World

Yes free 20%

Symbian Accenture (Nokia)

Open source (Eclipse Public License)

C++ Ovi Store Yes Onetime payment $1

30%

Google’s Android

• amounts to up to 70% of OS market share• ‘most permissive’ / no review process

unless…• selective open source business strategy

and unique business model

• change of license from Public General license into Apache

OS Company Software Licensing Type

Programming Language

Distribution platform (App markets)

Review process

Developers’ costs to distribute through App markets

Share of sales price kept by the distributor

iOS Apple Proprietary (with some open source components)

Objective-C Exclusively App Store

Yes Annual fee $99/year

30%

Android Google Free and open source (Apache License)

Java Android Marketplace (and alternative markets)

No Onetime payment $25

0

Windows Phone

Microsoft Proprietary .NET, Silverlight/XNA

Windows Phone Marketplace

Yes Annual fee $99 30%

BlackBerry OS

RIM Proprietary Java BlackBerry App World

Yes free 20%

Symbian Accenture (Nokia)

Open source (Eclipse Public License)

C++ Ovi Store Yes Onetime payment $1

30%

Discussion

In comparison with previous mobile phones - a positive development

BUT

In comparison with Internet and PCs a more controlled and restrictive

environment

• Shift of power from carriers to OS providers

(technology companies)

• Gate-keeping role of technology companies

Ada Lovelace

• gender and production of technologies

• gendered relationship to technologies• gendered technologies

Source: “Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering,” National Science Foundation. (US)

Gender gap

• gender gap in ICT industry occupations

Example of keyboards from Linotype to QWERTY

Does underrepresentation of women in design/development translate into male bias?

Gendered relationship to technologyA study Tools and Toys: Communicating gendered

positions towards technology

• toys vs. tools• performativity of gender (Butler) • gender is done in a more traditional way,

but there are few instances when it is “done differently”

“Over time, gender may matter less in relation to technology and could be blurred”

Gendered Tecnologies?

mosemghvdlishvili@eshcc.eur.nl