Engineering a platform: The construction of interfaces, users, organizational roles, and the division of labor

Internet “platforms” like Facebook and YouTube often avoid accountability and regulation by claiming that they are mere software infrastructures with little oversight over their users. Scholars in media and communication studies have shown that these platform companies’ control over interface and algorithm design gives them a disproportionately large power, compared to their users, to fundamentally reshape politically salient categories like the “social” or the “innovative.” This article argues that this power of platforms stems from their ability to shape organizational roles and the division of labor. Based on an ethnographic study of the edX organization, I describe how the architects at edX transformed it from an educational company into a platform by building digital interfaces and formatting multiple organizational roles (their own, those of their “users”) to engineer a dichotomy between “software” and “education.” I suggest that platform studies should expand its concept of governance to include the socio-technical-discursive work of engineering organizational roles and the division of labor.

[1]  John Cheney-Lippold,et al.  A New Algorithmic Identity , 2011 .

[2]  Taylor Walsh,et al.  Unlocking the Gates: How and Why Leading Universities Are Opening Up Access to Their Courses , 2010 .

[3]  Nick Montfort,et al.  Racing the Beam: The Atari Video Computer System , 2009 .

[4]  Klaus Bruhn Jensen One person, one computer: the social construction of the personal computer , 1994 .

[5]  Anne Helmond,et al.  The Platformization of the Web: Making Web Data Platform Ready , 2015 .

[6]  J. Dijck The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media , 2013 .

[7]  Zeynep Tufekci,et al.  Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics , 2014, First Monday.

[8]  Thierry Bardini,et al.  The Social Construction of the Personal Computer User , 1995 .

[9]  Christian Sandvig,et al.  Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook , 2018, New Media Soc..

[10]  Peter H. Salus,et al.  A quarter century of UNIX , 1994 .

[11]  Taina Bucher Objects of Intense Feeling: The Case of the Twitter API , 2013 .

[12]  Lilly U. Nguyen,et al.  BIRDS OF THE INTERNET , 2011 .

[13]  Frederick Turner,et al.  From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism , 2006 .

[14]  Thomas M. Malaby Making Virtual Worlds: Linden Lab and Second Life , 2009 .

[15]  Lucas D. Introna Algorithms, Governance, and Governmentality , 2016 .

[16]  Tarleton Gillespie,et al.  The politics of ‘platforms’ , 2010, New Media Soc..

[17]  David Ribes,et al.  Sociotechnical Studies of Cyberinfrastructure and e-Research: Current Themes and Future Trajectories , 2010, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[18]  Anne Helmond,et al.  The Affordances of Social Media Platforms , 2018 .

[19]  B. Larkin The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure , 2013 .

[20]  Karen Willcox,et al.  Online Education: A Catalyst for Higher Education Reforms , 2016 .

[21]  Nick Couldry,et al.  Researching Social Media as if the Social Mattered , 2015 .

[22]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  Conceptions of the user in computer systems design , 1995 .

[23]  M. Hales,et al.  Where Are Designers? Styles of Design Practice, Objects of Design and Views of Users in CSCW , 1994 .

[24]  S. Woolgar Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials , 1990 .

[25]  Pablo J. Boczkowski,et al.  The Relevance of Algorithms , 2013 .

[26]  Lilly Irani,et al.  The cultural work of microwork , 2015, New Media Soc..

[27]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[28]  Doug Tudhope,et al.  Reconfiguring the User: , 2000 .

[29]  Jean Burgess,et al.  The Politics of Twitter Data , 2013 .