Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 26, Issue 4–6, pp 663–691 | Cite as

Deliberate Individual Change Framework for Understanding Programming Practices in four Oceanography Groups

  • Kateryna KuksenokEmail author
  • Cecilia Aragon
  • James Fogarty
  • Charlotte P. Lee
  • Gina Neff


Computing affects how scientific knowledge is constructed, verified, and validated. Rapid changes in hardware capability, and software flexibility, are coupled with a volatile tool and skill set, particularly in the interdisciplinary scientific contexts of oceanography. Existing research considers the role of scientists as both users and producers of code. We focus on how an intentional, individually-initiated but socially-situated, process of uptake influences code written by scientists. We present an 18-month interview and observation study of four oceanography teams, with a focus on ethnographic shadowing of individuals undertaking code work. Through qualitative analysis, we developed a framework of deliberate individual change, which builds upon prior work on programming practices in science through the lens of sociotechnical infrastructures. We use qualitative vignettes to illustrate how our theoretical framework helps to understand changing programming practices. Our findings suggest that scientists use and produce software in a way that deliberately mitigates the potential pitfalls of their programming practice. In particular, the object and method of visualization is subject to restraint intended to prevent accidental misuse.


Scientific software Programming practice Data science Oceanography Qualitative analysis Sociotechnical infrastructure Software engineering 



This work was supported by grants from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation awarded to Professor Cecilia Aragon; and by NSF Graduate Research Fellowship and AT&T Graduate Research Fellowship awarded to Kateryna Kuksenok. NSF awards IIS-0954088 and NSF ACI-1302272 awarded to Prof. Charlotte P. Lee supported supplementary data used for the beginning of the study. We would like to thank Emmerline Wu and Madeline Wood, who assisted with gathering observational data from meetings. We would also like to thank the study participants for their time, energy, and goodwill.


  1. Barter, Christine; and Emma Renold (2000). 'I wanna tell you a story': Exploring the Application of Vignettes in Qualitative Research with Children and Young People. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 307–323.Google Scholar
  2. Button, Graham; and Wes Sharrock (1994). Occasioned Practices in the Work of Software Engineers. In M. Jirotka and J. A. Goguen (eds.): Requirements Engineering. pp. 217–240. San Diego, California: Academic Press Professional, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Carver, Jeffrey C.; Richard P. Kendall; Susan E. Squires; and Douglass E. Post (2007). Software Development Environments for Scientific and Engineering Software: A Series of Case Studies. In ICSE 2007:  29 th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2007. Minneapolis, MN, 19–May 27 May 2007. IEEE, pp. 550–559.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, Nan-Chen; Sarah Poon; Lavanya Ramakrishnan; and Cecilia R. Aragon (2016). Considering Time in Designing Large-Scale Systems for Scientific Computing. In CSCW 2016:  Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 February – 2 March 2016. ACM Press, pp. 1535–1547.Google Scholar
  5. De Souza, Cleidson; Jon Froehlich; and Paul Dourish (2005). Seeking the Source: Software Source Code as a Social and Technical Artifact. In GROUP 2005:  Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, 6–9 November 2005. ACM Press, pp. 197–206.Google Scholar
  6. Easterbrook, Steve M.; and Timothy C. Johns (2009). Engineering the Software for Understanding Climate Change. Computing in Science & Engineering, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 64–74.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, Paul N. (2010). A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming . Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, John K. (2005). Visualization: A Metacognitive Skill in Science and Science Education. In J. K. Gilbert (ed): Visualization in Science Education, pp. 9–27. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Hannay, Jo Erskine; Carolyn MacLeod; Janice Singer; Hans Petter Langtangen; Dietmar Pfahl; and Greg Wilson (2009). How do Scientists Develop and Use Scientific Software?. In SECSE'09:  Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering, 23 May 2009. IEEE, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. Heaton, Dustin; and Jeffrey C. Carver. (2015). Claims About the Use of Software Engineering Practices in Science: A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology, vol. 67, no. C, pp. 207–219.Google Scholar
  11. Howe, Bill; Peter Lawson; Renee Bellinger; Erik Anderson; Emanuele Santos; Juliana Freire; Carlos Scheidegger; António Baptista; and Cláudio Silva (2008). End-to-end eScience: Integrating Workflow, Query, Visualization, and Provenance at an Ocean Observatory. In IEEE Fourth International Conference on eScience, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 10–12 December 2008. IEEE, pp. 127–134.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, Steven J. (2014). Rethinking Repair. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski and K. A. Foot (eds.): Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, pp. 221–39. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, Steven J.; and Sarah Barbrow. (2013). Infrastructure and Vocation: Field, Calling and Computation in Ecology. In CHI 2013:  Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April – 2 May 2013. ACM Press, pp. 2873–2882.Google Scholar
  14. Kelly, Diane (2015). Scientific Software Development Viewed as Knowledge Acquisition: Towards Understanding the Development of Risk-Averse Scientific Software. Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 109, no. C, pp. 50-61.Google Scholar
  15. Kunzig, Robert (2000). Mapping the Deep: The Extraordinary Story of Ocean Science. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, Bruno; and Steven Woolgar (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Leach, James; Dawn Nafus; and Bernhard Krieger (2009). Freedom Imagined: Morality and Aesthetics in Open Source Software Design. Ethnos. vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 51-71.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, Charlotte P.; Paul Dourish; and Gloria Mark (2006). The Human Infrastructure of Cyberinfrastructure. In CSCW 2006:  Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Canada, 6–8 November 2006. ACM Press, pp. 483–492.Google Scholar
  19. Lieberman, Henry; Fabio Paternò; Markus Klann; and Volker Wulf (2006). End-User Development: An Emerging Paradigm. In H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, V. Wulf (eds.):  End-User Development, pp. 1–8. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Miles, Matthew B.; A. Michael Huberman; and Johnny Saldaña (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Washington DC: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Mislan, K. A. S.; Jeffrey M. Heer; and Ethan P. White (2016). Elevating the Status of Code in Ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 4–7.Google Scholar
  22. Orlikowski, Wanda J (2006). Material Knowing: The Scaffolding of Human Knowledgeability. European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 460–466.Google Scholar
  23. Paine, Drew; and Charlotte P. Lee (2014). Producing Data, Producing Software: Developing a Radio Astronomy Research Infrastructure. In IEEE 10th International Conference on e-Science, 20–24 October 2014, vol. 1, pp. 231–238.Google Scholar
  24. Pipek, Volkmar; and Volker Wulf (2009). Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of Information Technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 10. no. 5, pp. 447–473.Google Scholar
  25. Ribes, David; and Thomas A. Finholt (2009). The Long Now of Technology Infrastructure: Articulating Tensions in Development. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 375–398.Google Scholar
  26. Rönkkö, Kari; Yvonne Dittrich; and Dave Randall (2005). When Plans Do Not Work Out: How Plans are Used in Software Development Projects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 433–468.Google Scholar
  27. Segal, Judith (2007). Some Problems of Professional End User Developers. In P. Cox and J. Hosking (eds.): Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA, 23–27 September 2007. IEEE, pp. 111–118.Google Scholar
  28. Sletholt, Magnus Thorstein; Jo Hannay; Dietmar Pfahl; Hans Christian Benestad; and Hans Petter Langtangen (2011). A Literature Review of Agile Practices and Their Effects in Scientific Software Development. In Proceedings of the 2011 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI, USA, 21–28 May 2011. ACM Press, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  29. Star, Susan Leigh; and Karen Ruhleder (1996). Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces. Information Systems Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
  30. Steinhardt, Stephanie B. (2016). Breaking Down While Building Up: Design and Decline in Emerging Infrastructures. In CHI 2016:  Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016. ACM Press, pp. 2198–2208.Google Scholar
  31. Steinhardt, Stephanie B.; and Steven J. Jackson (2015). Anticipation Work: Cultivating Vision in Collective Practice. In CSCW 2015: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 14–18 March 2015. ACM Press, pp. 443–453.Google Scholar
  32. Suchman, Lucy (2002). Located Accountabilities in Technology Production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 7.Google Scholar
  33. Trainer, Erik H.; Chalalai Chaihirunkarn; Arun Kalyanasundaram; and James D. Herbsleb (2015). From Personal Tool to Community Resource: What's the Extra Work and Who Will Do It?. In CSCW 2015: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 14–18 March 2015. ACM Press, pp. 417–430.Google Scholar
  34. Traweek, Sharon (2009). Beamtimes and Lifetimes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Truex, Duane; Richard Baskerville; and Julie Travis (2000). Amethodical Systems Development: The Deferred Meaning of Systems Development Methods. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 53–79.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson, Greg; Dhavide A. Aruliah; C. Titus Brown; Neil P. Chue Hong; Matt Davis; Richard T. Guy; Steven H. D. Haddock; Kathryn D. Huff; Ian M. Mitchell; Mark D. Plumbley; Ben Waugh; Ethan P. White; and Paul Wilson (2014). Best Practices for Scientific Computing. PLoS Biology, vol. 12, no. 1, e1001745.Google Scholar
  37. Yeh, Ron B.; and Scott Klemmer (2004). Field Notes on Field Notes: Informing Technology Support for Biologists. Stanford University, California: Stanford InfoLab.Google Scholar
  38. Young, Alyson L.; and Wayne G. Lutters (2015). (Re) defining Land Change Science through Synthetic Research Practices. In CSCW 2015: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 14–18 March 2015. ACM Press, pp. 431–442.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasso-Plattner InstitutePotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Human Centered Design & EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Computer Science & EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Sociology, Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations