Advertisement

Domestication of Smart Home Technologies

Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

This chapter draws on in-depth qualitative data to explore how 10 households domesticated smart home technologies (SHTs) over a nine month period as part of the SHT field trial described in Chap.  1. The analysis is situated within the socio-technical view of smart homes and their users in our analytical framework (Table  2.1). We explore the co-evolution of SHTs and their users, and the forms of work and learning engaged in by householders when they adopt SHTs. We identify three distinct domestication pathways for SHTs which show why it is so important to pay close attention to homes as complex places and settings for the adoption and use of new technologies. In each of these pathways, we explain the negotiations, conflicts and resistances that SHTs generate as they are domesticated, and the multiple and sometimes uneven roles that different householders play in this process. We also demonstrate how the introduction of SHTs into homes can serve to disrupt and re-domesticate other aspects of the domestic environment. Pre-existing domestic technologies must be fitted-in with the newly ‘smart’ home. Three core themes emerge from this new analysis. First, SHTs are both technically and socially disruptive. Second, householders must adopt a range of adaptation strategies to cope with the disruption that SHTs generate and which can limit their use and potential. Third, domesticating SHTs requires considerable work from householders for which there is currently very little support available.

References

  1. Berker T, Hartmann M, Punie Y, Ward KJ (2005) Introduction. In: Berker T, Hartmann M, Punie Y, Ward KJ (eds) Domestication of media and technology. Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  2. Haddon L (2006) The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media consumption. The Inf Soc 22:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hargreaves T, Nye M, Burgess J (2010) Making energy visible: a qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy 38:6111–6119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Isaksson C (2014) Learning for lower energy consumption. Int J Consum Stud 38:12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Juntunen JK (2014) Domestication pathways of small-scale renewable energy technologies. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 10(2). Online at http://sspp.proquest.com
  6. Lehtonen T-K (2003) The domestication of new technologies as a set of trials. J Consum Cult 3:363–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mennicken S, Huang EM (2012) Hacking the natural habitat: an in-the-wild study of smart homes, their development, and the people who live in them. Lect Notes Comput Sci 7319:143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mennicken S, Vermeulen J, Huang EM (2014) From today’s augmented houses to tomorrow’s smart homes: new directions for home automation research. Paper presented at the UbiComp 2014, Seattle, USA, 13–17 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  9. Nyborg S (2015) Pilot users and their families: inventing flexible practices in the smart grid. Sci Tech Stud 28(3):54–80Google Scholar
  10. Oudshoorn N, Pinch T (2003) Introduction: how users and non-users matter. In: Oudshoorn N, Pinch T (eds) How users matter: the co-construction of users and technology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  11. Smits M (2006) Taming monsters: the cultural domestication of new technology. Technol Soc 28:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sørensen KH (1994) Technology in use: two essays on the domestication of artefacts. Centre for technology and society working paper 2/94, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  13. Sørensen KH (1996) Learning technology, constructing technology. Centre for technology and society working paper 18/96, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  14. Strengers Y, Nicholls L (2017, In Press) Convenience and energy consumption in the smart home of the future: industry visions from Australia and beyond. Energy Res Soc Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.02.008
  15. Wallenborn G, Orsini M, Vanhaverbeke J (2011) Household appropriation of electricity monitors. Int J Consum Stud 35:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Winther T, Bell S (2017, In Press) Domesticating in home displays in selected British and Norwegian households. Sci Technol StudGoogle Scholar
  17. Wyatt S (2003) Non-users also matter: the construction of users and non-users of the internet. In: Oudshoorn N, Pinch T (eds) How users matter: the co-construction of users and technology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts & London, pp 67–79Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science, Society and Sustainability Research Group (3S), School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations