Organizational Affordances: A Structuration Theory Approach to Affordances

Affordance is an important concept in the field of human–computer interaction. There are various interpretations of affordances, often extending the original notion of James J. Gibson. Often the treatment of affordances in the current human–computer interaction literature has been a one-to-one relationship between a user and an artefact. We believe that the social and cultural contexts within which an artefact is situated affect the way in which the artefact is used and the notion of affordance needs to be seen as a dynamic, always emerging relationship between people and their environment. Using a Structuration Theory approach, we conceptualize the notion of affordance at a much broader level, encompassing social and cultural aspects. We suggest that affordances should be seen at three levels: single user, organizational (or work group) and societal. Focusing on the organizational level affordances, we provide details of several important factors that affect the emergence of affordances. - This article provides a new perspective on the discourse of affordance with the use of Structuration Theory. - It shows how affordance can be understood as ‘use’ in situated practices (i.e. ‘technology-in-practice’) - The Structuration Theory approach to affordances is showcased using two case studies.

[1]  Nava Pliskin,et al.  Presumed Versus Actual Organizational Culture: Managerial Implications for Implementation of Information Systems , 1993, Comput. J..

[2]  James A. Landay,et al.  The design of eco-feedback technology , 2010, CHI.

[3]  R. Westrum.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems , 1989 .

[4]  Giovanni Masino,et al.  Information technology artefacts as structuring devices in organizations: design, appropriation and use issues , 2003, Interact. Comput..

[5]  S. Greenberg,et al.  The Psychology of Everyday Things , 2012 .

[6]  J. Offer.  Mind and Society , 1988, Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind.

[7]  W. Orlikowski.  The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations , 2014 .

[8]  Stephen Fox.  Communities Of Practice, Foucault And Actor‐Network Therory , 2000 .

[9]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies , 2005, TCHI.

[10]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concep , 2000, Graphics Interface.

[11]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction , 2005 .

[12]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[13]  J. Dutton,et al.  The Cultures of Work Organizations. , 1992 .

[14]  Nina Bonderup Dohn.  Affordances revisited: Articulating a Merleau-Pontian view , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[15]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Affordances in HCI: toward a mediated action perspective , 2012, CHI.

[16]  Alan J. Dix,et al.  Designing for appropriation , 2007, BCS HCI.

[17]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

[18]  Christian Heath,et al.  Collaboration and controlCrisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms , 1992, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[19]  Robert J. Anderson,et al.  Representations and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design , 1994, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[20]  William Hart-Davidson,et al.  Binding the material and the discursive with a relational approach of affordances , 2014, CHI.

[21]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Competing Interpretations of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work in Organizational Contexts , 2000 .

[22]  Phil Turner,et al.  Affordance as context , 2005, Interact. Comput..

[23]  T. Klein,et al.  Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning , 1978 .

[24]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[25]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation , 2006, DIS '06.

[26]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design , 1980, Management Science.

[27]  Dhaval Vyas,et al.  Artefact Ecologies: Supporting Embodied Meeting Practices with Distance Access , 2007 .

[28]  Douglas Schuler,et al.  Participatory Design: Principles and Practices , 1993 .

[29]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[30]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concep , 2000, Graphics Interface.

[31]  H. Rex Hartson,et al.  Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design , 2003, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[32]  Klaus B. Bærentsen,et al.  An activity theory approach to affordance , 2002, NordiCHI '02.

[33]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Affordance, conventions, and design , 1999, INTR.

[34]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Affordances and Design , 2014 .

[35]  E. Reed.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[36]  Claude Ghaoui,et al.  Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction , 2005 .

[37]  G. Veer,et al.  Affordance in interaction , 2006, ECCE '06.

[38]  Tom Rodden,et al.  The role of ethnography in interactive systems design , 1995, INTR.

[39]  William W. Gaver.  Technology affordances , 1991, CHI.

[40]  M. Bunge.  Mind and Society , 2010 .

[41]  Maurice Merleau-Ponty.  Phenomenology of Perception , 1964 .

[42]  W. Bijker.  The social construction of bakelite: toward a theory of invention , 1987 .

[43]  W. Orlikowski.  Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations , 2000 .

[44]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[45]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Competing interpretations of computer supported co-operative work. , 2000 .