Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-usability: Understanding the Relationship Between Information Technology and Well-Being

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design Thinking and Practice in Contemporary and Emerging Technologies (HCII 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13323))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1517 Accesses

Abstract

Information and communication technology (ICT) plays a critical role in the modern workplace. Yet it is a double-edged sword consisting of a set of resources that can help improve our lives while at the same time placing demands on us that can have a profound negative impact on our well-being. This action research study explores the relationship between usability and well-being in the IT function of a large UK University. It considers four key models: (1) Usability Socio-Technical Model; (2) Technology Acceptance Model; (3) Information Overload Framework; and (4) ICT Demand-Resource Framework. From these four different complementary models, a fifth is derived that describes the concept of meta-usability. Collectively the models help explain the relationship between ICT and well-being more fully than just by considering the user’s interaction with it. Importantly they show that well-being is influenced by a complex range of socio-technical factors that influence the user’s experience. This represents a basis for devising practical interventions at a technological and organizational level to further enhance the actual and perceived user experience to help ensure ICT empowers staff in the workplace.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sparks, K., Faragher, B., Cooper, C.L.: Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 74, 489–509 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kowalski, T.H.P., Loretto, W.: Well-being and HRM in the changing workplace. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 28, 2229–2255 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1345205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Day, A., Barber, L.K., Tonet, J.: Information communication technology and employee well-being: understanding the “iParadox triad” at work. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Technology and Employee Behavior, pp. 580–607 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649636.022

  4. Biggs, A., Brough, P., Drummond, S.: Lazarus and Folkman’s psychological stress and coping theory. In: Cooper, C.L., Quick, J.C. (eds.) The Handbook of Stress and Health: A Guide to Research and Practice. John Wiley & Sons (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. ICT: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ict (2022)

  6. Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., Butler, B.: Beyond the organizational ‘container’: conceptualizing 21st century sociotechnical work. Inform. Organ-UK 24, 250–269 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization: Promoting Mental Health. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42940 (2004)

  8. Ruggeri, K., Garcia-Garzon, E., Maguire, Á., Matz, S., Huppert, F.A.: Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: a multidimensional analysis of 21 countries. Health Qual. Life Out. 18, 192 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01423-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crisp, R.: Well-Being. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2021 edn. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/well-being (2021)

  10. Bevan, N., Kirakowski, J., Maissel, J.: What is Usability? Presented at the September (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bevan, N.: Measuring usability as quality of use. Software Qual. J. 4, 115–130 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00402715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Licklider, J.C.R.: Man-Computer Symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1, pp. 4–11 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1109/thfe2.1960.4503259

  13. Hutchins, E., Hollan, J., Norman, D.: Direct manipulation interfaces. Hum.-Comput. Int. 1, 311–338 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0104_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Myers, B.A.: A brief history of human-computer interaction technology. ACM Interact. 5, 44–54 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1145/274430.274436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Standardization, E.C. for: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts. European Committee for Standardization (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shneiderman, B.: Human factors of interactive software. In: Blaser, A., Zoeppritz, M. (eds.) IBM 1983. LNCS, vol. 150, pp. 9–29. Springer, Heidelberg (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-12273-7_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Seffah, A., Donyaee, M., Kline, R.B., Padda, H.K.: Usability measurement and metrics: a consolidated model. Software Qual. J. 14, 159–178 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-006-7600-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brooke, J.: System Usability Scale (SUS): A Quick-and-Dirty Method of System Evaluation User Information. Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., Norman, K.L.: Development of an Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface. ACM (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Norman, K.L., Shneiderman, B., Harper, B., Slaughter, L.: Questionnaire for User Interface Satisfaction (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Scapin, D., Senach, B., Trousse, B., Pallot, M.: User experience: buzzword or new paradigm? In: ACHI 2012, The Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions. https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00769619 (2012)

  23. Berni, A., Borgianni, Y.: From the definition of user experience to a framework to classify its applications in design. Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 1627–1636 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bradbury, H. (ed.): The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. Sage Publications (2015). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290

  25. Moghaddam, A.: Action research: a spiral inquiry for valid and useful knowledge. Alta. J. Educ. Res. 53, 228–239 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Creswell, J.W.: Research Design. SAGE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Glaser, B.G.: Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Charmaz, K.: Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In: Gubrium, J.F., Holstein, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Interview Research, pp. 675–694 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412973588

  30. Schön, D.A.: The reflective practitioner (1991). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473

  31. Fook, J.: In: Lishman, J. (ed.) Reflective Practice and Critical Reflection, pp. 440–454. Jessica Kingsley (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage Publications (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Farace, D., Schöpfel, J. (eds.): Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies. De Gruyter Saur (2010). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783598441493

  34. Hinde, S., Spackman, E.: Bidirectional citation searching to completion: an exploration of literature searching methods. Pharmacoeconomics 33(1), 5–11 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0205-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hosking, I.M.: Understanding and Evaluating User Interface Visibility (2021). https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.62228

  36. Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. Elsevier (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

  37. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13, 319–340 (1989). https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bagozzi, R.P., Davis, F.D., Warshaw, P.R.: Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Hum. Relat. 45, 659–686 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37, 122–147 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46, 186–204 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bagozzi, R.: The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8, 244–254 (2007). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122

  42. Eppler, M.J., Mengis, J.: The concept of information overload: a review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Inform. Soc. 20, 325–344 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Day, A., Scott, N., Kelloway, E.K.: Information and communication technology: implications for job stress and employee well-being. In: New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress, pp. 317–350 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-3555(2010)0000008011

  44. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E.: The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J. Manage. Psychol. 22, 309–328 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lee, Y.-C., Malcein, L.A., Kim, S.C.: Information and communications technology (ICT) usage during COVID-19: motivating factors and implications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public 18, 3571 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hasan, N., Bao, Y.: Impact of “e-Learning crack-up” perception on psychological distress among college students during COVID-19 pandemic: a mediating role of “fear of academic year loss”. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 118, 105355 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105355

  47. Lazarus, R.S., Folkman, S.: Stress Appraisal and Coping. Springer, New York (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Li, M., Nielsen, P.: Making usable generic software. A matter of global or local design? In: 10th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems (2019). https://aisel.aisnet.org/scis2019/8

  49. meta-, prefix: www.oed.com/view/Entry/117150 (2021)

  50. Ometov, A., Bezzateev, S., Mäkitalo, N., Andreev, S., Mikkonen, T., Koucheryavy, Y.: Multi-factor authentication: a survey. Cryptography 2, 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/cryptography2010001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Riley, J.: Understanding Metadata: What is Metadata, and What is it For? National Information Standards Organization (2017). http://www.niso.org/publications/understanding-metadata-2017

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their colleagues and the end-users whom we work with and develop services for. In particular, we would like to thank Prof. Ian Leslie whose questioning around the relationship between usability and well-being was the spark that set the work in motion and David Marshall for his constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK

    Ian Michael Hosking & Kate Livingstone

Authors
  1. Ian Michael Hosking
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate Livingstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian Michael Hosking .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Southern University of Science and Technology – SUSTech, Shenzhen, China

    Marcelo M. Soares

  2. World Usability Day and Bubble Mountain Consulting, Newton Center, MA, USA

    Elizabeth Rosenzweig

  3. Aaron Marcus and Associates, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Aaron Marcus

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

This work was an internally funded project at the University of Cambridge as part of a digital transformation programme. The authors declare they have no competing interests in the dissemination of this work. While the authors receive funding in an operational capacity, this work is free from any interests and has no direct link to work that would influence any outputs or conclusions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hosking, I.M., Livingstone, K. (2022). Meta-usability: Understanding the Relationship Between Information Technology and Well-Being. In: Soares, M.M., Rosenzweig, E., Marcus, A. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design Thinking and Practice in Contemporary and Emerging Technologies. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13323. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05906-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05906-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05905-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05906-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation