, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 455–476 | Cite as

In sweet harmony or in bitter discord? How cultural values and stakeholder requirements shape and users read an urban computing technology

  • Leena Ventä-OlkkonenEmail author
  • Netta Iivari
  • Arto Lanamäki
Original Article


Culture is, in many ways, implicated in and shapes technology design and use. Inspired by Stuart Hall’s conception of encoding/decoding, we maintain that technological artefacts reflect the cultural values of their creators, while users, in their encounters with the technological artefacts, may decode those artefacts in various ways that are shaped by the users’ cultural values. In this article, we apply this lens to study a decade-long urban computing project that took place in the wild. We focus on the project’s development team and on how their cultural values shape technology design. We also acknowledge that such an urban computing project involves many other stakeholder groups that affect the course of events. In our analysis, we examine how these stakeholders shaped and interpreted the technology in question. Although the development project had a seemingly generic “for all” ethos, the various stakeholders pulled the focus in different directions. The trajectory of the project can be characterized as reacting to these competing influences—sometimes achieving fit, while other times resulting in conflicts. The contribution of this paper is a structured analysis and reflections on cultural issues in community technology design in the wild, with a focus on the role of the developers’ cultural values and other stakeholders’ technology-related requirements and interpretations. This study has implications for subsequent studies in the wild by framing them as fluid settings of a great variety of stakeholders with a multiplicity of values, requirements, and interpretations.


Cultural aspects Urban computing Cultural match Cultural diversity Cultural values In the wild 


  1. Adriansen HK (2012) Timeline interviews: a tool for conducting life history research. Qual Stud 3(1):40–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajmal MM, Koskinen KU (2008) Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: an organizational culture perspective. Proj Manag J 39(1):7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allaire Y, Firsirotu ME (1984) Theories of organizational culture. Org Stud 5(3):193–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheverst K, Taher F, Fisher M, Fitton D, Taylor N (2012) The design, deployment and evaluation of situated display-based systems to support coordination and community. Ubiquitous display environments, series: cognitive technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–124Google Scholar
  6. Clifford J, Marcus G (eds) (1986) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  7. Clinch S, Davies N, Friday A, Efstratiou C (2011) Reflections on the long-term use of an experimental digital signage system. In: Proceedings of UbiComp’11,pp 133–142Google Scholar
  8. Czarniawska-Joerges B (1992) Exploring complex organizations. a cultural perspective. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalsgaard P, Halskov K (2010) Designing urban media façades: cases and challenges. In: Proceedings of CHI 2010, pp 2277–2286Google Scholar
  10. Lindtner S, Anderson K, Dourish, P (2012) Cultural appropriation: information technologies as sites of transnational imagination. In: Proceedings of CSCW, pp 77–86Google Scholar
  11. Flanagan M, Howe DC, Nissenbaum H (2005) Values at play: design tradeoffs in socially-oriented game design. In: Proceedings of CHI 2005, pp 751–760Google Scholar
  12. Friday A, Davies N, Efstratiou C (2012) Reflections on long-term experiments with public displays. Computer 45(5):34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallivan M, Srite M (2005) Information technology and culture: merging fragmented and holistic perspectives of culture. Inf Organ 15(2):295–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Giorgi S, Lockwood C, Glynn MA (2015) The many faces of culture: making sense of 30 years of research on culture in organization studies. Acad Manag Ann 9(1):1–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grint K, Woolgar S (1997) The machine at work. technology, work and organization. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Halkola E, Iivari N, Kuure L (2015) Infrastructuring as social action. In: Proceedings of ICIS 2015Google Scholar
  18. Hall S (1980) Encoding/decoding. In: Hall S, Hobson D, Lowe A, Willis P (eds) Culture, media, language: working papers in cultural studies, 1972-79. Hutchinson, London, pp 128–138Google Scholar
  19. Iivari N (2005) Usability specialists–‘a mommy mob’,‘realistic humanists’ or ‘staid researchers’? An analysis of usability work in the software product development. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 418–430Google Scholar
  20. Iivari N (2006) ‘Representing the user’ in software development—a cultural analysis of usability work in the product development context. Interact Comput 18(4):635–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iivari N (2010) Culturally compatible usability work—an interpretive case study on the relationship between usability work and its cultural context in software product development organization. J Org End User Comput 22(3):40–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iivari J, Iivari N (2011) The relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of agile methods. Inf Softw Technol 53(5):509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iversen OS, Halskov K, Leong TW (2010) Rekindling values in participatory design. In: Proceedings of PDC, pp 91–100Google Scholar
  24. Keesing R, Strathern A (1998) Cultural Anthropology. A contemporary perspective, 3rd edn. Harcourt Brave College Publishers, Fort WorthGoogle Scholar
  25. Kroeber A, Kluckhohn C (1952) Culture: a critical review of the concepts and definitions. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Kukka H, Luusua A, Ylipulli J, Suopajärvi T, Kostakos V, Ojala T (2014) From cyberpunk to calm urban computing: exploring the role of technology in the future cityscape. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 82:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lave J, Wenger J (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcus A, Gould EW (2000) Crosscurrents: cultural dimensions and global Web user-interface design. Interactions 7(4):32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinviita A, Kuure L, Luoma P (2015) Do we speak the same language?: design goals and culture clashes in an online forum for young people. In: Proceedings of C&T, pp 69–78Google Scholar
  30. Memarovic N (2015) Understanding future challenges for networked public display systems in community settings. In: Proceedings of C&T, pp 39–48Google Scholar
  31. Memarovic N, Langheinrich M, Cheverst K, Taylor N, Alt F (2013) P-LAYERS—a layered framework addressing the multifaceted issues facing community-supporting public display deployments. ACM Trans Comput Human Interact 20(3):17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller JK, Friedman B, Jancke G, Gill B (2007) Value tensions in design: the value sensitive design, development, and appropriation of a corporation’s groupware system. In: Proceedings of GROUP, pp 281–290Google Scholar
  33. Müller J, Walter R, Bailly G, Nischt M, Alt F (2012) Looking glass: A field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window. In: Proceedings of CHI 2012, pp 297–306Google Scholar
  34. Myers MD, Newman M (2007) The qualitative interview in IS research: examining the craft. Inf Organ 17:2–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ogan A, Walker E, Baker RS, Rebolledo Mendez G, Jimenez Castro M, Laurentino T, de Carvalho A (2012) Collaboration in cognitive tutor use in Latin America: Field study and design recommendations. In: Proceedings of CHI 2012, pp 1381–1390Google Scholar
  36. Ojala T, Kukka H, Lindén T, Heikkinen T, Jurmu M, Hosio S, Kruger F (2010) UBI-hotspot 1.0: large-scale long-term deployment of interactive public displays in a City center. In: Proceedings of ICIW, pp 285–294Google Scholar
  37. Ortner SB (ed) (1999) The fate of culture. Geertz and beyond. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  38. Ouchi W, Wilkins A (1985) Organizational culture. Ann Rev Sociol 11:457–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sabiescu AG, David S, van Zyl I, Cantoni L (2014) Emerging spaces in community-based participatory design: reflections from two case studies. In: Proc. PDC,pp 1–10Google Scholar
  40. Schein E (1985) Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  41. Sheridan J, Chamberlain K, Dupuis A (2011) Timelining: visualizing experience. Qual Res 11(5):552–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smircich L (1983) Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Adm Sci Q 28(3):339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ståhlbröst A, Bergvall-Kåreborn B, Ihlström Eriksson C (2015) Stakeholders in smart city living lab processes. In: Proceedings of AMCIS’15, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  44. Suopajärvi T, Ylipulli J, Kinnunen T (2012) “Realities behind ICT Dreams”: designing a Ubiquitous City in a living lab environment. Int J Gend Sci Technol 4(2):231–252Google Scholar
  45. Taylor N, Cheverst K (2009) Supporting community awareness with interactive displays. Computer 45(5):26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor N, Cheverst K (2010) Creating a rural community display with local engagement. In: Proceedings of DIS’10, pp 218–227Google Scholar
  47. Taylor N, Cheverst K, Wright P, Olivier P (2013) Leaving the wild: lessons from community technology handovers. In: Proceedings of CHI 2013, pp 1549–1558Google Scholar
  48. Tolvanen E, Jylhä M (2005) Alcohol in life story interviews with Finnish people aged 90 or over: stories of gendered morality. J Aging Stud 19(4):419–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Maanen J, Barley Stephen R (1984) Occupational communities: culture and control in Organizations. In: Barry M Staw, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 6. JAI Press, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Marrewijk A (2007) Managing project culture: the case of Environ Mega project. Int J Project Manag 25(3):290–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ventä-Olkkonen L, Lanamäki A, Iivari N, Kuutti K (2016) It’s a Pain in the… wild?: struggling to create conditions for emerging practices in an urban computing project. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI’16. ,p 51Google Scholar
  52. Weber M (1958) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Unwin Hyman, London, Boston, p 1930Google Scholar
  53. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winschiers-Theophilus H, Zaman T, Yeo A (2015) Reducing white elephant ICT4D projects: a community-researcher engagement. In: Proceedings of C&T, pp 99–107Google Scholar
  55. Ylipulli J, Suopajärvi T (2013) Contesting ubicomp visions through ICT practices: power negotiation in the meshwork of a technologized city. International Communication Gazette July 11, 2013, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  56. Ylipulli J, Luusua A, Kukka H, Ojala T (2014a) Winter is coming: introducing climate sensitive urban computing. In: Proceedings of DIS’14, pp 647–656Google Scholar
  57. Ylipulli J, Suopajärvi T, Ojala T, Kostakos V, Kukka H (2014b) Municipal WiFi and interactive displays: appropriation of new technologies in public urban spaces. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 89:145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leena Ventä-Olkkonen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Netta Iivari
    • 1
  • Arto Lanamäki
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Computer Interaction and Human-Centered Development (INTERACT), Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ITEE)University of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations