End-user Empowerment: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

In virtue of fast spreading emerging technologies, considering end-user empowerment (or human empowerment) while developing or adapting technologies gains importance. Even though many different approaches to end-user empowerment have been proposed, it is hardly clear what "end-user (human) empowerment" is and how it is possible to develop "end-user empowering systems". This paper offers an interdisciplinary perspective on how it can be possible to arrive at a synthesized concept of end-user empowerment, in particular regarding the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). The provided interdisciplinary perspective includes concepts from Computer Science, Information Systems, Cognitive Science, Psychology, Sociology, Science-Technology-Society, Design, System Science and Philosophy. Based on an interdisciplinary literature review, and from an enactivist, pluralist, and constructivist perspective, we argue that the individual end-users and their needs and values, as well as the environment (including socioeconomical contexts, other actors, etc.) and technologies they interact with, continuously co-create the conception of end-user empowerment. Moreover, we propose that perceiving technological development as co-creation, and considering technologies as value-bearers could provide the first steps in the development of conceptual frameworks required for the development of end-user empowering systems.

[1]  Gianclaudio Malgieri,et al.  The right to data portability in the GDPR: Towards user-centric interoperability of digital services , 2017, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[2]  Christian Nestler,et al.  Freedom Rising. Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation , 2017 .

[3]  Sumeet Gupta,et al.  A User Empowerment Approach to Information Systems Infusion , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[4]  D. Tranfield,et al.  Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review , 2003 .

[5]  Philip Barker,et al.  Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From Production to Produsage , 2009 .

[6]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Taking Stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work , 2007 .

[7]  Stefan Larsson,et al.  A Platform Society , 2018 .

[8]  Leon Straker,et al.  A socioeconomic related 'digital divide' exists in how, not if, young people use computers , 2017, PloS one.

[9]  Ilse Mariën,et al.  Digital inclusion and user (dis)empowerment: a critical perspective , 2014 .

[10]  Lauren B. Cattaneo,et al.  The process of empowerment: a model for use in research and practice. , 2010, The American psychologist.

[11]  Manuela Celi,et al.  Towards User Involvement in Envisioning Practices , 2015 .

[12]  P. Reeves,et al.  Empowerment , 2006 .

[13]  Tai-Li Wang.  From News Receiver to News Produser—The New Relationship between Journalists and Audience in Web 2.0 , 2016 .

[14]  Ezequiel A. Di Paolo,et al.  The Enactive Approach , 2014 .

[15]  Tony Sahama,et al.  Security, Privacy, and Ownership Issues with the Use of Wearable Health Technologies , 2017 .

[16]  Ellen Helsper,et al.  A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion , 2012 .

[17]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Design for user empowerment , 2014, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[18]  M. Flanagan,et al.  Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice , 2008 .

[19]  Jonathan Bishop,et al.  Networked: The New Social Operating System , 2013, Int. J. E Politics.

[20]  P. Speer.  Intrapersonal and interactional empowerment: Implications for theory , 2000 .

[21]  S. Tefft.  Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide , 2002 .

[22]  Earl S. Kramer,et al.  On λ-designs , 1974 .

[23]  David A. Wagner,et al.  Android permissions: user attention, comprehension, and behavior , 2012, SOUPS.

[24]  D. Ouden,et al.  Innovation design: creating value for people, organizations and society / Elke den Ouden , 2012 .

[25]  Sandra Wachter,et al.  Normative challenges of identification in the Internet of Things: Privacy, profiling, discrimination, and the GDPR , 2018, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[26]  S. Graham.  Bridging Urban Digital Divides? Urban Polarisation and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) , 2002 .

[27]  Eugène Loos,et al.  Conclusion: Substantiating User Empowerment , 2011, New Media Technologies and User Empowerment.

[28]  John G. Gammack,et al.  The Promise and Perils of Wearable Technologies , 2017 .

[29]  Soheil HUMAN,et al.  [How] Can Pluralist Approaches to Computational Cognitive Modeling of Human Needs and Values Save our Democracies? , 2019, Intellectica. Revue de l'Association pour la Recherche Cognitive.

[30]  K. Thomas,et al.  Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation , 1990 .

[31]  Pedro Jacobetty,et al.  Digital sociology , 2016, New Media Soc..

[32]  Hal Berghel,et al.  Malice Domestic: The Cambridge Analytica Dystopia , 2018, Computer.

[33]  M. Zimmerman.  Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations , 1995, American journal of community psychology.

[34]  Samuel Bianchini,et al.  Mis)behavioral Objects , 2015 .

[35]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering , 2006, ICSE.

[36]  Brian D. Christens.  Toward Relational Empowerment , 2012, American journal of community psychology.

[37]  Alessandro Acquisti,et al.  Misplaced Confidences , 2013, WEIS.

[38]  Oliver Leistert.  Soziale Medien als Technologien der Überwachung und Kontrolle , 2021, Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften.

[39]  S. Russell,et al.  Youth Empowerment and High School Gay-Straight Alliances , 2009, Journal of youth and adolescence.

[40]  Christiane Grünloh,et al.  Using technological frames as an analytic tool in value sensitive design , 2018, Ethics and Information Technology.

[41]  M. Hindman.  The Myth of Digital Democracy , 2008 .

[42]  Derek McAuley,et al.  Realising the right to data portability for the domestic Internet of things , 2017, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[43]  Max Scheler,et al.  Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values: A New Attempt Toward the Foundation of an Ethical Personalism , 1973 .

[44]  G. Spreitzer.  PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND VALIDATION , 1995 .

[45]  N. Peterson,et al.  The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Empowerment: Support and New Implications for Theory , 2001, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[46]  Tracy Brown,et al.  The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience , 2002, Cybern. Hum. Knowing.

[47]  Stephanie Riger,et al.  What's wrong with empowerment , 1993 .

[48]  William Bradley Glisson,et al.  Compromising a Medical Mannequin , 2015, AMCIS.

[49]  N. Peterson,et al.  Empowerment and Sense of Community: Clarifying Their Relationship in Community Organizations , 2008, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.