Datasets:

---

LLMDH

/

OpenScience

like 0

Follow

LLM - Digital Humanities 16

ERROR: type should be string, got "https://oro.open.ac.uk/49560/ This document has been downloaded from Open Research Online, The Open University's \nrepository of research publications. This version is being made available in accordance \nwith Open Research Online policies available from Open Research Online (ORO) Policies Open Research Online Citation Piccolo, Lara S. G. and Pereira, Roberto (2019). Culture-based artefacts to inform ICT \ndesign: foundations and practice. AI & Society, 34(3) pp. 437–453. Versions If this document is identified as the Author Accepted Manuscript it is the version after peer \nreview but before type setting, copy editing or publisher branding AI & Soc\nDOI 10.1007/s00146-017-0743-2 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Culture-based artefacts to inform ICT design: foundations\nand practice Lara S. G. Piccolo1 • Roberto Pereira2 Received: 1 March 2016 / Accepted: 3 July 2017\n\u0002 The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract Cultural aspects frame our perception of the\nworld and direct the many different ways people interact\nwith things in it. For this reason, these aspects should be\nconsidered when designing technology with the purpose to\npositively impact people in a community. In this paper, we\nrevisit the foundations of culture aiming to bring this\nconcept in dialogue with design. To inform design with\ncultural aspects, we model reality in three levels of for-\nmality: informal, formal, and technical, and subscribe to a\nsystemic vision that considers the technical solution as part\nof a more complex social system in which people live and\ninteract. In this paper, we instantiate this theoretical and\nmethodological view by presenting two case studies of\ntechnology design in which culture-based artefacts were\nemployed to inform the design process. We claim that as\nimportant as including issues related to culture in the ICT\ndesign agenda—from the conception to the development,\nevaluation, and adoption of a technology—is the need to\nsupport the design process with adequate artefacts that help\nidentifying cultural aspects within communities and trans-\nlating them into sociotechnical requirements. We argue\nthat a culturally informed perspective on design can go beyond an informative analysis, and can be integrated with\nthe theoretical and methodological framework used to\nsupport design, throughout the entire design process. Keywords Human–computer interaction \u0002 Culture\nand values in design \u0002 Organisational semiotics \u0002\nSocially aware design Keywords Human–computer interaction \u0002 Culture\nand values in design \u0002 Organisational semiotics \u0002\nSocially aware design 1\nKnowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Walton\nHall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK AIS Volume: Special issue: Cultural Diversity and Community\nTechnology Design (CulTech)-volume to be allocated later. 2\nDepartment of Informatics, Federal University of Parana´\n(UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil 2 Our perspective on culture According to Tylor (2010), the term ‘‘Culture’’ emerged in\n1871 as a synthesis of the terms ‘‘Kultur’’ and ‘‘Civiliza-\ntion’’, used to refer to all the spiritual aspects of a com-\nmunity and their material achievements, respectively. Culture, in its wide and ethnographic sense, represents the\ncomplex wholeness that includes knowledge, belief, art,\nmorals, law, custom, and any other capability and habit\nacquired by a human being as a member of a society. Culture, Communities, and ICT Design have been\ninvestigated and discussed from a multitude of perspectives\nand conceptual backgrounds—e.g., Bødker et al. (2003),\nKamppuri et al. (2006), Leidner and Kayworth (2006) and\nHalabi et al. (2015), to cite a few. It is a common under-\nstanding, though, that establishing a culture of informing\nICT design with cultural aspects still demands efforts that\nstart from revisiting theoretical and methodological grounds\nand practices. It is both a matter of action and perspective-\ntaking, which requires a shift in our position as researchers,\nscientists, and practitioners, seeing the people before the\nproblem, the social impact before the technology, and the\nactual needs of users and stakeholders ahead of automating\ntasks. In fact, as important as including issues related to\nculture in the ICT design agenda—from the conception to the\ndevelopment, evaluation, and adoption—is the need to\nsupport the design process with adequate artefacts that help\nidentifying cultural aspects within communities and trans-\nlating them into sociotechnical requirements. Hofstede (2005) offers a perspective on culture that\nrelies on shared beliefs, values and practices of a group of\npeople, as the collective programming of mind that dis-\ntinguishes the members of one culture from the members of\nanother. Stamper et al. (2000) develop a similar argument\nthat the shared norms between people are what define a\nculture. Barth (1969) introduces a different cultural-an-\nthropological notion suggesting that is not a cultural core\nthat defines a group, but the boundaries: they delineate the\nidentity of the community, making clear the distinct\naspects. For Bødker et al. (2003), Barth’s approach helps\nfocus on contexts and situations in which boundaries are\ngenerated. Hall (1977) argues that the natural act of thinking is\nstrongly modified by culture and believes that more\nimportant than looking at theories with a specific cultural\nfocus, is looking at the way different aspects that influence\nour perception, behaviour and understandings are put\ntogether. 1 Introduction Historically, technology development studies and research\nfor understanding human culture have been split by an\nepistemological barrier. But the recent and broad impact of\ntechnology on people’s lives has blurred this boundary,\nrequiring more dialogue and cooperation between—and\nbeyond—both domains. An interchange of perspectives\nand methods has been necessary to design new meaningful\nInformation and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and\nto understand the influence of ICTs on people’s lives. This\nsociotechnical approach to design also paves the way for\ncreating new ICTs for the common good, such as for\nenabling and empowering groups of people to deal with\nchallenges and threats (Pipek et al. 2016), strengthening\ncommunities, reinforcing social solidarity, or addressing\ndisadvantage issues (Gurstein 2007). New fields of study like Community Informatics (Gur-\nstein 2007) have emerged in the past decades integrating\ndifferent research domains and pursuing this positive social\nimpact. Moreover, some ‘‘hard’’ sciences have expanded\ntheir inner boundaries to better understand how people\nperceive a technology, how they appropriate it, and how\nthey are affected by it. In Computer Science, these studies\nare in the context of the (inter)discipline human–computer\ninteraction (HCI). Since it became a field in the 80s, HCI 12 3 AI & Soc discuss how they can support design and benefit the\ncommunities involved. has evolved from ergonomics and cognitive modelling to\nembracing more social and subjective aspects of humans’\nlives, such as values and culture (Rogers 2012). In this\ncontext, culture can be understood as the set of knowledge,\nbeliefs, art, morals, and any other capabilities and habits\nshared within a social group (Tylor 2010), which influence\nthe way individuals or communities perceive the world and\ninteract with it. 2 Our perspective on culture Drawing attention to the impact of technology on\ncommunities is not a recent issue, restricted to the digital\nera. In the mid-50s, Sharp (1952) analysed the introduction\nof the steel axe by a group of missionaries into a tribe. It\nwas expected the steel axe would improve the tribe’ pro-\nductivity and quality of life, but an inevitable collapse of its\ntraditional culture and values was triggered instead. This\nimpact may have been caused by the technology itself, the\nway it was introduced, the way it was used, the interests\nbehind it and so on. Analysing the industrial design field in the 70s, Papanek\n(1971) brought attention to the need for socially and\nenvironmentally responsible design of products, tools and\ninfrastructure, and for recognising designers’ social and\nmoral responsibility in this process. Criticising a culture\ncentred on economic and technical issues, the author\nhighlighted the impacts caused by the creation of products\nthat promote harmful behaviours, or even mutilate and kill\npeople, neglecting the social context of design, the target\naudience and the society in general. Earlier examples of essential digital services not truly\naccessible by design or even harmful to the society keep\nemerging worldwide. This can be briefly illustrated by an\ne-gov platform in Brazil named eSocial, launched as\nmandatory for paying domestic work-related taxes. Critical\ndesign issues prevented the system from addressing par-\nticularities of users, and only one-third of users were able\nto comply with their obligations due to these constraints. The others were unfairly fined for the payment delay\n(Globo 2015). The examples illustrate real situations, and\nthe last one demonstrates that disregarding social impact is\nstill a contemporary issue, but on a growing scale as it\ncomes to ICT. Negative impacts brought about by technology intro-\nduction to a community or a society cannot be prevented or\nsolved by focusing on technical issues only. Dealing with\nthe ‘‘non-neutrality of technology design’’ (Baranauskas\n2014) requires considering the sociocultural world in which\nsolutions are used and people live in. However, simply\nsituating a design solution into a context that merely\nattempts to reflect the real world or an artificial scenario\nthat the designer is able to represent and explain is not\nenough. 2 Our perspective on culture We\nthen\npresent\nthe\nfour\nculturally\ninformed design artefacts and explain how they have\nbeen used in the contextual studies, allowing us to 123 123 AI & Soc and a responsibility to change it.’’ (Mike Cooley,\nRight Livelihood Award Speech,1 1981). patterns, attitudes, values, and material goods are under a\ncultural context, being developed according to these areas. Another important contribution of Hall’s work (1959)\nis the notion of the informal, formal, and technical levels\nin which humans operate and understand the world. According to him, each level is present in any situation,\nbut one will always dominate in a given instant of time,\nand is analysed separately. Sometimes, the shifts (and\nboundaries) between these levels are subtle and rapid, but\nunderstanding them and their shifts would be the basic\nrequirement to understand the process of cultural change. For instance, Hall (1959) sees learning as a basic activity\nin life, arguing it is one of the most representative char-\nacteristics of a culture: people may learn from observing\nother people and imitating them (informal); from other’s\nexplicit feedback, suggestions and instructions (formal);\nor from books, guidelines and other materials that explain\nand justify things in a coherently outlined form (techni-\ncal). In all these levels of learning there may be values\nand preferences involved (informal), as well as rules and\n(not) acceptable behavioural patterns (formal), as well as\nobjects and materials (technical) and so on. It is also\npossible to see the three levels in action when considering\ntechnology adoption in educational practices. There are\nseveral informal issues at play, mainly emotional and\naffective constructs, such as students’ motivations and\nteachers’ openness to change. There are also formal issues\nthat must be understood and followed, such as the laws,\nthe teaching program and the students’ minimum age. And there are technical issues, which range from choos-\ning the right educational technology that respects the\nformal issues and is in conformity with the informal ones,\nto the physical structure and available resources, such as\nthe learning space, internet access, network security, etc. All the issues mentioned are equally important and vary\nstrongly from a cultural context to another, indicating that\nit is not possible to understand ICT and its impact\ndetached from the cultural context in which it is designed,\ndelivered and used. 1 http://www.rightlivelihoodaward.org/speech/acceptance-speech-\nmike-cooley/ last access: December 1st, 2016. 2 Our perspective on culture Only when involved as another interested party in\nco-creating a cultural context, together with community\nmembers, the social and political structures and the con-\nstraints of the natural environment, the designer will be\nable to explore the potential of ICT to tackle efficiently\nsocial\nissues,\nmaking\ninformation\nmore\naccessible, Hall (1959, 1977) is then our main theoretical reference\nboth to understand how culture and design are related and\nto inform our process of designing technology. In our\nperspective, Hall’s foundation enriches the design context\nand enables designers to look at the world through the\nlenses of different stakeholders and to deal with different\nlevels of formalism. 2 Our perspective on culture Questioning about specific situations may already\nprovide interesting insights, but understanding the cultural\ncontext in which people live, the way they interact, and\ntheir behavioural patterns can provide richer results than\nlooking at predefined hypotheses relating people and their\nperception of things in life. In this paper, we ground our discussions on socially\naware computing, an approach to ICT design conceived by\nBaranauskas (2009, 2014). This approach models reality in\nthree levels that influence each other: the technical, or the\n‘‘tangible world’’ where the ICTs are situated; the formal,\nwhere existing rules shape our behaviour; and the informal,\ncomposed by values, beliefs, motivations, and other aspects\nthat influence how we perceive the world. Based on this\nconceptual approach, we explore four artefacts/strategies\nwe applied in practice: (i) the organisational onion; (ii) the\nprimary message systems (PMS); (iii) social norms; and\n(iv) the value pie, which we have developed ourselves. The\nartefacts are explained and illustrated considering two\ncomplementary case studies with different communities\nand contexts in Brazil: the first one for raising collective\nawareness of energy consumption and conservation; the\nsecond to mediate the socialisation of educational practices\nrelated to students with special needs. In Hall’s perspective (1959), culture is understood as\ndifferent ways of organising life, thinking, and under-\nstanding basic assumptions about the family, the state, the\neconomic system, and the human being, acting as a link\nbetween humans and the means of interacting with each\nother. Hall’s approach is based on 10 Primary Messages\nSystems of communication, or areas, that he named the\nbasic building blocks of culture: Interaction, Association,\nLearning, Play, Protection, Exploitation, Temporality,\nTerritoriality, Classification, and Subsistence. He argues\nthat any culture can be characterised, analysed, and com-\npared through a combination between these areas. Culture\nis then analysed as a form of communication giving\nemphasis to the non-verbal aspects (behaviours, values,\nintentions, needs, expectations, etc.). Learned behaviour In the next three sections of this paper we shed light\non (i) our perspective on culture; (ii) the rationale for\ninforming ICT design with cultural aspects; and (iii) how\nthe fields of ICT design and community informatics have\ndealt with cultural aspects, bringing perspectives from\nthe\nliterature. 4 How cultural aspects have been addressed\nin HCI Culture has been addressed in HCI with different purposes,\nnot necessarily dealing with the intentionality (and impact)\nof ICT on communities and societies. It has been employed\nin usability evaluations (Del Gado and Nielsen 1996; Yeo\n2000; Winschiers and Fendler 2007), inspired design\nmethods from a cultural perspective (Gasparini et al. 2011;\nSalgado et al. 2011) and discussed in terms of interna-\ntionalisation/globalisation\nof\nuser\ninterfaces\n(Marcus\n2001). Studies to support design activities were found by\nSalgado et al. (2013), and Pereira and Baranauskas (2015),\nthe latest grounded in Hall’s (1959) primary messages\nsystem. From an HCI perspective, even considering some\ninfluential references, recent literature claims that research\nin culture has been guided by practical and specific prob-\nlems and contexts, therefore, building a fragmented view\n(Pereira and Baranauskas 2015; Salgado et al. 2013, 2015). As Bødker (2006) highlights, most work has been pre-\nsented in theoretical isolation and as a solitary technical\nsolution. In this sense, while the literature argues it pro-\nvides guidance, methods and examples on how we can\nactually understand and consider culture in technology\ndesign, Isomursu et al. (2011) highlight that existing\nmodels and approaches in literature tend to restrict the\nanalysis,\nsometimes\npreventing\nthe\nidentification\nof\nimportant aspects that may emerge from the cultural con-\ntext being analysed. Therefore, there is a need for artefacts\nand methods to support designers who have little or no\nbackground in social sciences, balancing between offering\ndesigners guidance and the liberty to inquire and under-\nstand the design context. Contextual design (Beyer and Holtzblatt 1997) is a user-\ncentred design process that offers a set of methods to\nsupport the design of products based on the collection,\ninterpretation and use of data about users in the field. The\nprocess provides a cultural model supporting designers to\nrepresent the most important culture and policy aspects that\ninfluence how work is conducted in an organisation, what\nconstraints are placed on people and how they deal with\nthose constraints to conduct their work (Holtzblatt and\nBeyer 2013). The model offers guidance to analyse the\ncollected data, but no support is offered for further deci-\nsions and actions, from data collection to requirements\nidentification. Reviewing 28 culture-related studies from the HCI lit-\nerature, Kamppuri et al. 3 The role of culture in ICT design ‘‘… Technology is not given. It’s not like the sun or\nthe moon or the stars. It was made by people like us. If it’s not doing for us what we want, we have a right 12 3 AI & Soc From a community study perspective, to create an impact\nwith ICT, Bødker et al. (2003) and Bødker (2015) suggest\nstudying and addressing communities systematically, con-\nsidering conflicts, boundaries, controversies and not least\nunderstanding our own role as designers/researchers/ac-\ntivists in this space. Instead of identifying boundaries, for\nGurstein (2007) promoting social change by means of ICT\nresonates\nwith\ndistribution and\nexecution\nof\npower. Understanding the power system then, is a way to under-\nstand communities’ dynamics. Halabi et al. (2015), in turn,\nanalysed three community-based projects in terms of\naligning design intentions and brought to light some find-\nings in terms of methodological approaches. The authors\nhighlighted the importance of the knowledge produced in\ncommunity interactions to determine the design goals. Exploratory methods, such as ethnography, appeared to be\npromising as triggers for engaging with, and contributing\nback to communities with knowledge that is already theirs\nin tacit form. However, this method usually results in\nidentifying design implications, not design intentions. promoting new worldviews and social innovation (Murray\net al. 2010). To this end, methods and tools to build this\nknowledge in different sociocultural contexts and to\ntransform them into features or elements of design are\nnecessary. We will further unpack these issues in the next\nsections. 4 How cultural aspects have been addressed\nin HCI (2006)categorised three main\napproaches: (i) considering culture as a characteristic of a\nuser based on cognitive psychology, favouring formal\nexperiments and surveys as methods (57% of the analysed\nstudies); (ii) studying the immediate cultural context of a\nuser (18% of the studies); (iii) studying culture as a larger\nsystem, addressing the relationship between technology\nand culture, including topics such as cultural factors in the\nadaptation of technology (another 18%), which is domi-\nnated by Hofstede’s (2005) approach. However, as Salgado\net al. (2013) argue, Hofstede (2005) assumes the existence\nof generalised cultural traits. If on the one hand it facilitates\npredicting the behaviour of large cultural groups, a nation\nfor example, on the other hand it does not favour identi-\nfying the cultural aspects of a group in a particular context,\nsuch as a community. In the next section, we introduce socially aware com-\nputing\n(Baranauskas\n2009,\n2014),\nthe\nsociotechnical\napproach we adopt, which is grounded in community par-\nticipation in a situated design context and resonates with\nHall’s perspective on culture. 5 A Socially aware approach to ICT design For Baranauskas (2009, 2014), a technically centred\nperspective prevents those in a design context from making\nsense of the problem in a wider sense, restricting also the\nrange of solutions that can be proposed. The metaphor of a\n‘‘Semiotic Onion’’ (Stamper 2001) illustrates then the idea\nthat technical aspects in design are within a formal level,\nwhere rules regulate the way people act. The formal level\nis, in turn, immersed in an informal level made up of\ncultural aspects, where people’s beliefs, values and moti-\nvations are situated. The technical, formal, and informal\nlevels influence each other. In our understanding, Baranauskas’ design process does\nnot finish in the technical level, but continues crossing back\nto the formal and informal layers, showing that the design\nproduct has the potential to trigger changes not only on its\nown features, but also in formal social norms and proce-\ndures, in a community or organisation’s practices, and in\nthe people’s activities and behaviours. Therefore, the\nenvironment, the shared understanding about the problem\nand its solution, as well as their importance to different\nstakeholders, change iteratively and incrementally. From our practical experiences, we argue that the con-\ntribution of a culturally informed perspective on design can\ngo beyond an informative analysis and should be somehow\nintegrated with the theoretical and methodological frame-\nwork used to support design, throughout any design pro-\ncess. Organisational Semiotics provides methods and\nartefacts that address aspects like stakeholders’ concerns,\npatterns of behaviour, values, etc., such as the stakeholder\nidentification diagram, valuation frame and norms, among\nothers (Liu 2000). When referring to culture as a set of norms shared\namong people, Stamper et al. (2000) classify norms\naccording to their formality (i.e., informal, formal, tech-\nnical), arguing that a community is formed by different\nkinds of norms that govern how its members behave. This\nunderstanding resonates with Hall’s (1959) notion of the\nthree levels in which humans operate and understand the\nworld, termed as well technical, formal and informal,\nwhich provides a lens to understand ICT as part of a cul-\ntural context, permeated by values, emotions, expectations,\nneeds, norms, laws, procedures, behavioural patterns and\nso on. In line with that, Baranauskas (2009, 2014) under-\nstands the design of ICT as a movement that starts in\nsociety (see the dashed ellipse in Fig. 5 A Socially aware approach to ICT design Socially Aware Computing (Baranauskas 2009, 2014),\nwhich we refer to as socially aware design, is an approach\nto ICT design informed by sociocultural aspects, respon-\nsive to real societal needs. The approach asks for an\nunderstanding of the socioeconomic and cultural reality, 123 123 AI & Soc which refers to identifying the forces that are in play\ninfluencing the way people perceive the world (and tech-\nnology), the way they interact with things and with others,\ntheir expectations, values, etc. It may also reveal important\nand desirable (or undesirable) aspects for a diversity of\nstakeholders, influencing the design rationale with issues\nthat\nare\nnot\neasily\nevidenced\nby\ntraditional\ndesign\nprocesses. activities support requirements elicitation, the decision-\nmaking informed by the knowledge constructed during\nproblem clarification and the solution modelling. The\ndesign process continues towards the construction of a\ntechnical layer through activities that support interactive\nprototyping, the codification and experimentation of design\nalternatives and their evaluation. Such an approach has the following key characteristics: This approach has organisational semiotics as theoretical\nframe of reference: a discipline that studies information and\nits functions in organised domains, such as a company, or a\ncommunity. Through the lenses of semiotics, one’s per-\nception of the world is subjective, relying on the triad\ncomposed by the person, the ecological system and the signs\nin the world (Peirce 1867–1913). Organisational Semiotics\nprovides methods and techniques for understanding and\nmodelling information systems, considering social and\nhuman activities—and the diversity of perspectives—as\npart of this system (Liu 2000; Stamper et al. 2000). With the\nsocially aware approach, Baranauskas (2014) applies\norganisational semiotics concepts and methods to inform\nICT design, relying also on Participatory Design (Schuler\nand Namioka 1993) as a methodological influence. •\nIt demands the articulation of meanings of a social\ngroup in their informal and formal levels for the co-\nconstruction of the system at the technical level. •\nIt recognises the other, and their differences, as\nessential to a systemic view of the design of interactive\nsystems. •\nIt recognises the communication between parties as a\nculturally defined social phenomenon and proposes\nartefacts to mediate this communication to ensure their\ncreative and collaborative involvement in design. •\nIt entrusts in the stakeholders the power to design and\nallows their creative and responsible involvement in\ndesign solutions. •\nIt is situated in a socioeconomic and cultural reality,\nwithout losing its location in the broader world. 5 A Socially aware approach to ICT design 1), crossing the\ninformal information system layer where activities are\nconducted to clarify the design problem (e.g., identify the\nstakeholders, their cultural differences, needs, interests,\nexpectations, etc.); then the design progresses from the\nInformal to the Formal Information System layer, where In the next subsections, we explore a set of culture-\nbased artefacts/strategies addressing cultural aspects within\nthe socially aware design context. 5.1 The organisational onion As previously described, every technical artefact designed\nfor/with a community presupposes a formal system that\ndetermines forms and rules, which relies on the informal 12 3 AI & Soc AI & Soc Fig. 1 Baranauskas’ socially\naware design model\n(Baranauskas 2009) Fig. 1 Baranauskas’ socially\naware design model\n(Baranauskas 2009) system\nwith\nmeaning,\nintentions,\ncommitments\nand\nresponsibilities of agents. The representation of the layers,\nas illustrated in Fig. 1, facilitates creating a panorama of\nthe main forces in play influencing the ICT design, as well\nas an understanding of how the influence propagates\nbetween layers. In the organisational onion (Fig. 2), the\nICT being conceived is placed on the core of the technical\nlevel, surrounded by other associated technical artefacts. The formal or informal forces such as some stakeholders’\ninfluence, shared values, norms and beliefs are in their\nrespective layer, or sometimes across two layers (for\nexample, some entities play formal and informal roles at\nthe same time). An example of a generic organisation\nonion is illustrated in Fig. 2. Rules and Regulation are\nsituated in the formal layer. The community organisation,\nor its structure, may be situated somewhere in between the\nformal and informal levels. In the informal layer are situ-\nated habits, values, beliefs and motivations. An instance of the organisational onion will be described in the case\nstudies section. system\nwith\nmeaning,\nintentions,\ncommitments\nand\nresponsibilities of agents. The representation of the layers,\nas illustrated in Fig. 1, facilitates creating a panorama of\nthe main forces in play influencing the ICT design, as well\nas an understanding of how the influence propagates\nbetween layers. In the organisational onion (Fig. 2), the\nICT being conceived is placed on the core of the technical\nlevel, surrounded by other associated technical artefacts. The formal or informal forces such as some stakeholders’\ninfluence, shared values, norms and beliefs are in their\nrespective layer, or sometimes across two layers (for\nexample, some entities play formal and informal roles at\nthe same time). An example of a generic organisation\nonion is illustrated in Fig. 2. Rules and Regulation are\nsituated in the formal layer. The community organisation,\nor its structure, may be situated somewhere in between the\nformal and informal levels. In the informal layer are situ-\nated habits, values, beliefs and motivations. An instance of Fig. 1 Baranauskas’ socially\naware design model\n(Baranauskas 2009) 5.2 Hall’s primary message systems (PMS) As previously mentioned, Hall’s approach considers ten\nmain areas that culturally distinguish a social group (Hall\n1959; Kolkman 1993). The PMS define this taxonomy with\nten categories of implicit behaviours: •\nInteraction describes the specific relation between\npeople and their environment. •\nBisexuality refers to the behavioural differentiation\naccording to gender, age, race, etc. More recently,\nKolkman (1993) renamed bisexuality to Classification\nreflecting a wider meaning. •\nAssociation: refers to how people interact with others\nand the social organisations. •\nLearning and acquisition: means how the knowledge is\ntransmitted from a biological origin to formal and\ninformal learning processes. Fig. 2 Example of a generic organisational onion •\nDefence: concerns how people defend themselves from\nhostile forces from nature and within the human\nsociety;\nincluding\nreligion,\nmedicine\nand\nlaw\nenforcement. •\nPlay: aspects of joy, competition, affection. •\nExploitation: refers to adaptations, including the mate-\nrial ones, to exploit the environment. •\nTemporality: involves cycles and rhythms, how people\ndeal with time. •\nTerritoriality:\nregards\ntaking\npossession,\nuse\nand\ndefence of a territory. •\nSubsistence: includes features, habits and processes\nfrom individual food habits to the economy of a\ncountry. Fig. 2 Example of a generic organisational onion 123 AI & Soc AI & Soc As Hall (1959), p. 57) states, ‘‘each PMS is obviously so\nrich and complex that it can be made the subject of a\nlifetime’s work’’. Thereafter, in the context of ICT design\nan analysis of these ten elements should not have the\nambition of being complete, mapping all the complexity of\na community. Rather, it intends to highlight aspects that\ncould not be easily observed in traditional design pro-\ncesses, but strong enough to influence technology percep-\ntion and use. Participatory activities with a community\npromoting self-reflection and situated discussion around\nthese elements can help identifying and describing them, as\nfound in Pereira et al. (2011). Data analysis from ethno-\ngraphic studies, surveys, etc. can also be framed according\nto the PMS, as the example presented in the case study of\nthis paper. In a complementary way, the Valuation Framing\nartefact from Organisational Semiotics (Liu 2000) suggests\nassociating the ten areas of this cultural system with dif-\nferent stakeholders and their interests regarding the prob-\nlem being handled. Baranauskas 2014) on the grounds of Organisational\nSemiotics (Liu 2000) and Hall’s PMS (Hall 1959). 5.3 Mapping social norms Within the organisational semiotics framework (Liu 2000),\na community, organisation or social group can be seen as a\nsystem of social norms (Stamper et al. 2000). The norms\ndetermine patterns of behaviour, and whether they are legal\nor acceptable within the social context, defining then a\nculture. Norms are developed as collective affordances\nthrough practical experiences of people, influencing how\nthey perceive the world, make judgments and possibly\nguiding their behaviour and thoughts according to a sub-\njective evaluation of a situation. Norms can be manipu-\nlated, applied and disregarded accordingly (Stamper 1993). Within\nOrganisational\nSemiotics\ncontext,\nnorms\nare\nstructured as rules (Liu 2000): 2. Identify the slice (area of culture) most related to it (if\nmore than a slice is suitable, see which one is the\ndominating and consider the other as a related area). Accessibility, for instance, may be related to the\n‘‘Exploitation’’ area, i.e., it is as a value related to the\nexploration of the world. 3. Investigate the informal, formal and technical aspects\nrelated to the selected concept (e.g., accessibility): Fig. 3 The value pie (Pereira and Baranauskas 2014)\n1 for a certain community and a certain purpose,\nif x then A is (obliged/permitted/forbidden) to do y. for a certain community and a certain purpose, if x then A is (obliged/permitted/forbidden) to do y. where x is some perception of the situation, A is a\nresponsible agent (a person or group of people) and y is the\naction. The agent A can only act in accordance with the\nnorms of the community for the given purpose if he/she/it\nhas the information necessary for perceiving the situation\nand the power to communicate it. Once identified, the\nnorms can be translated into system requirements. Norms\nare, therefore, a way to represent cultural issues, carrying\nthem to the materialisation of an ICT, i.e., allowing to\n‘‘translate’’ cultural issues into a computing feature. 5.2 Hall’s primary message systems (PMS) It\nsupports the problem and context understanding from three\ndifferent perspectives: Cultural nature, Formality and\nInterplay (see Fig. 3). Cultural nature means that values are\ndeveloped according to an area of culture, and with pos-\nsible intersections between different areas. Formality\nmeans that values are manifested on one of the three levels,\nbut have aspects to be considered in all the three simulta-\nneously. Interplay means that values are intertwined to\neach other, affecting and influencing each other in different\nways. The value pie is a conceptual artefact that can support\nthe reasoning and discussion of existing concepts from a\ncultural perspective, regardless of the design process,\ntechniques and tools adopted. The simple act of mapping a\nconcept onto the different dimensions of the value pie\nprovides a value-oriented and culturally informed view of\nthe concept and related issues. For instance: 1. Look for critical/important concepts involved in the\ndesign context, e.g., accessibility, privacy, autonomy,\nproperty, etc. 5.4 The value pie Analyse the relationships of the concept with other\nareas: accessibility has a clear relationship with the\ninteraction area (i.e., it allows interaction to happen)\nand is commonly approached according to predefined\ncriteria/types (classification)—e.g., kinds of impair-\nments, ageing, and education. Physical accessibility is\nrelated to territoriality and may depend on the time\n(e.g., having something available); the (lack of)\naccessibility may affect values related to subsistence\nand can put an individual in a risk situation (defence/\nprotection), etc. Each area may offer a different\nperspective on the concept being considered, favouring\na wider perception regarding its impact on the design\ncontext. 4. Analyse the relationships of the concept with other\nareas: accessibility has a clear relationship with the\ninteraction area (i.e., it allows interaction to happen)\nand is commonly approached according to predefined\ncriteria/types (classification)—e.g., kinds of impair-\nments, ageing, and education. Physical accessibility is\nrelated to territoriality and may depend on the time\n(e.g., having something available); the (lack of)\naccessibility may affect values related to subsistence\nand can put an individual in a risk situation (defence/\nprotection), etc. Each area may offer a different\nperspective on the concept being considered, favouring\na wider perception regarding its impact on the design\ncontext. Considering Baranauskas’ perspective on the design of\ninformation systems (2009, 2014), the structure of the\nValue Pie suggests at least two core ideas on norms and\nvalues: 1) Each important concept or issue being discussed\nin ICT design has formal issues to be understood and\nconsidered, which may be represented by norms. There-\nfore, norms may act as the bridge between the informal and\nthe technical levels, specifying the way technical features\nshould work; 2) If ICT is not understood in a cultural\ncontext, the norms it operationalises tend to not make sense\nto users, not afford the behaviours they are used to in their\nsocial world and may trigger undesired side-effects on\nthem and on their environment. Several authors have argued that understanding the\ncontext is the most critical activity in the design process\n(Bannon 2011; Sellen et al. 2009; Winograd 1997). The\nvalue pie artefact can be used both as lens to look at the\ndesign context from a wide, yet structured, social per-\nspective and to understand specific concepts in a compre-\nhensive and informed manner. 5.4 The value pie The\nvalue\npie\nis\na\nculturally\ninformed\nconceptual\nscheme\none\nof\nthe\nauthors\ncreated\n(Pereira\nand Fig. 3 The value pie (Pereira and Baranauskas 2014) 12 3 AI & Soc a. Informal: different stakeholders have different\nvalues and react to accessibility in different ways\n(e.g., a disabled person will value ramps and lifts\nvery differently from a non-disabled one); stakeholders understand and value it; formal—the (exist-\ning, new) social norms, laws and rules related to the value;\ntechnical—the technical solutions, objects, materials rela-\nted to it, or which need to be developed/redesigned. In\nculture, designers will identify the area (or areas) of culture\nwhere the concept has originated, and in Interplay, they\nwill reason about the possible influences it can cause/suffer\nfrom space, time, subsistence, learn and the other areas of\nculture, as well as other concepts. b. Formal: there are rules, laws and norms related to\naccessibility that must be understood and followed\n(e.g., standards and certifications, requirements for\naccessibility). Even if no formal regulation is\nfound, there will be well-accepted social norms\nthat explain how a society deals with a given issue. For instance, consider the word ‘‘Privacy’’ in Fig. 3. It is\nformally defined by the Oxford Dictionary2 as ‘‘1. A state\nin which one is not observed or disturbed by other people;\n1.1. The state of being free from public attention’’. In the\nValue Pie, privacy may be understood as a cultural value\ndeveloped in the Protection area, reflecting the importance\nof protecting personal information, ideas, things (ex-\nploitation), space (territoriality), etc. People have their own\ninformal understanding for what privacy is and what it\nmeans, but also social norms and formal regulations, as\nwell as technical devices and materials to guarantee it. Privacy is directly related to people’s identity, impacts on\ntheir security and on their welfare, and both influences and\nis influenced by their affective and emotional states. What\nis necessary and/or expected to protect and why, what are\nthe means to protect it, the extension and limits of privacy\nand the importance given to it are examples of aspects that\ndiffer strongly according to the culture being analysed and\ncross all the dimensions of the Value Pie. c. Technical: there are physical structures, tools and\ntechnical devices for enhancing accessibility (e.g.,\nassistive\ntechnologies);\nthere\nare\npublic\nand\nprivate services related to accessibility, technical\nprocedures, frameworks, etc. 4. 2 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/privacy (last access: 30\nNovember 2016). 5.4 The value pie When used to look at the\ndesign context, the artefact value pie warns designers to the\nexistence of informal, formal and technical aspects (ele-\nments, attributes, behaviours, rules, values) related to the\nway the stakeholders interact (to each other, the environ-\nment, technology), associate, learn, play, deal with time\nand space and so on. 6 Case studies When applied to discuss specific concepts (e.g., acces-\nsibility, identity, privacy), the value pie invites designers to\nthink about the concept according to value pie’s different\ndimensions. One could imagine a concept ‘‘floating’’\nthrough the slices and layers of the Value Pie: although we\ntend to find a place where the concept is clearly manifested,\nwe can see and discuss how it is related to the other layers\nand slices. In the dimension of formality, designers will\nlook at the given concept according to its informal, formal\nand\ntechnical\naspects:\ninformal—the\nway\ndifferent In this section, we briefly introduce two case studies of ICT\ndesign targeting community strengthening, collaboration\nand social change. Informed by the socially aware design\napproach, the case studies illustrate how concepts and the\nculture-based artefacts previously described were applied. 123 123 123 AI & Soc AI & Soc Both design studies are situated in Brazil, in distinct\ndomains and with different purposes. Brazilian scenario. For this reason, this area has been\nselected to host a pilot deployment of smart grid technol-\nogy by the local energy provider. The first case study aimed to promote collective\nawareness of energy consumption by means of a social\ntechnology. As fully described in Piccolo et al. (2017), we\nfirst mapped the problem and the reality in the three levels,\ntechnical, formal and informal, defining an Organisational\nOnion. To shape the analysis on how people in the scenario\nperceive energy consumption and environmental protec-\ntion, we applied Halls’ PMS and then identified some\nsocial norms. The main findings were modelled into gen-\neral guidelines to design a social technology to raise energy\nawareness (Piccolo et al. 2012; 2013). Five main steps summarise the situated design process:\n(1) Understanding the problem; (2) eliciting culturally\ninformed requirements and guidelines; (3) identifying\ncurrent and intended patterns of behaviour; (4) experi-\nmental setting; (5) impact evaluation. Different strategies\nfor data collection and sources of information about the\nsociocultural context were employed: a survey within the\ncommunity, interviews with stakeholders, official national\nstatistical data, focus groups, and an ethnographic study\nfrom the literature. The survey was employed to under-\nstand, among other things, the perceptions connecting\nenergy use and the environment, how people relate to each\nother in the community, as well as their eventual motiva-\ntions to save energy. 6 Case studies Interviews with stakeholders, such as\nthe energy provider and staff in a local school, revealed the\ninfluence of social forces like drug trafficking and the\nsocial acceptance of illegal electricity connections. Data\nfrom national statistics and focus groups suggested mainly\nthe typical appliances usage, consumption habits, and\npossibilities to change behaviour. To inform the design\nwith a sociocultural analysis, we have employed the three\nconceptual artefacts associated with the socially aware\napproach, as summarised in Table 1 below. In the second case study, we drew on Hall’s theory to\nunderstand the cultural practices and views of Brazilian\nspecial education teachers. Through participatory activi-\nties, a group of teachers co-created requirements to design\na web platform to support their teaching practice, as\nreported in Pereira and Baranauskas (2015). In the fol-\nlowing sections, we illustrate the applicability of the cul-\nture-based artefacts previously presented in the two case\nstudies and discuss the benefits of the approach. 6.1 Promoting energy awareness The first case study summarised refers to promoting a new\n‘‘social affordance’’, or patterns of behaviour shared in a\ncommunity (Stamper 2001; Liu 2000), related to using\nenergy. The study aimed to contribute to the urgent need of\ncoping with the limits of the planet in terms of natural\nresources. Instead of targeting directly reduction of energy\nconsumption, the technology designed intended to raise\nawareness about the impact of the energy on the natural\nenvironment, both individually and collectively, and bring\ninto discussion possibilities to save energy respecting\nlifestyle and contextual circumstances. The study took\nplace in the city of Sete Lagoas in an area that reflects the\nnational average in terms of domestic electricity con-\nsumption, as well as the sociocultural diversity of the The impact of the technology on the social group and\nthe design decisions were evaluated in a study involving\ndirectly 24 students of a public elementary school and their\nfamilies. The study assessed the influence of design fea-\ntures on people’s motivation and engagement with the\ncause. 6.1.3 Patterns of behaviour The sociocultural data collected via interviews with\nstakeholders, focus groups, and the survey within the\ncommunity were also analysed and mapped as Norms\n(Piccolo et al. 2013), as this example illustrates: Fig. 4 Technical, formal and informal elements related to raise\nenergy awareness \\MOST OF THE TIME, when in contact with people\nwho do not pay for energy, THEN consumers MAY\nbelieve that they should not pay for energy too.[ \\MOST OF THE TIME, when in contact with people\nwho do not pay for energy, THEN consumers MAY\nbelieve that they should not pay for energy too.[ the border between them. Appliances and electronics, and\nhow they can be operated efficiently, are in the technical\nlevel, together with in-home displays, eventually present in\nsome households to provide feedback on consumption. Between the technical and formal levels are the official\nenergy meters and the bill, the ‘‘physical’’ connection\nbetween the energy consumed and its supplier. Tariffs used\nand costs, current regulations, and the energy provider are\nin the formal level. The relationship with the energy pro-\nvider, though, is in the border between formal and informal\nlevels. As evidenced in our situated research (Piccolo et al. 2013), the perception of energy consumption is strongly\naffected by the relationship between the energy company\nand the customer, and the existing trust and respect (or lack\nthereof) (Piccolo and Baranauskas 2011). Concerns about\nthe natural environment and the interest to save money are\nsome of the possible motivations to save energy, in the\ninformal level. Also in the informal level are situated the\nmainly unconscious habits of using energy and the social\nnorms, the ‘‘I do it because everybody does it’’. These\naspects influence each other and, all together, impact the\nway people perceive energy and energy consumption in\ndaily life. Therefore, they need to be taken into account\nwhen designing a technology that aims to change this\nperception. This norm reflects the fact that stealing electricity\nthrough illegal connections was somehow a culturally\naccepted behaviour. Other identified norms evidenced, for\ninstance, that the traditional link between air pollution and\nenergy generation/consumption adopted in eco-feedback\ndesign worldwide actually does not make sense for that\ncommunity. People usually associate energy waste with\nwasting water due to the predominant hydroelectric power\ngeneration in their context. 6.1.1 Understanding the problem Illustrating the influence of technical, formal and informal\naspects together on this social issue, in Fig. 4 the main\nelements identified as part of the problem are represented\nin their respective levels of the Organisational Onion, or in Table 1 Artefacts of the socially aware approach: application and outcomes\nDesign artefact\nStep in the design\nprocess\nSource of information\nOutcome of the application\nOrganisational\nonion\nUnderstanding the\nproblem\nNational statistics, survey within\nthe social group, interviews with\nstakeholders\nUnderstanding the problem by identifying main forces,\nstakeholders, and the influences among them in the\ntechnical, formal and informal levels\nPMS\nEliciting requirements\nand guidelines\nSurvey and ethnographic study\nfrom the literature\nUnderstanding how people perceive energy consumption and\nenvironmental protection, translating it into design\nrequirements\nMapping social\nnorms\nIdentifying current and\nintended patterns of\nbehaviour\nSurvey, interviews with\nstakeholders, focus group\nCurrent patterns of behaviour in the community and ‘‘desired’’\nbehaviours that should be promoted Table 1 Artefacts of the socially aware approach: application and outcomes Understanding the problem by identifying main forces,\nstakeholders, and the influences among them in the\ntechnical, formal and informal levels 12 3 AI & Soc Fig. 4 Technical, formal and informal elements related to raise\nenergy awareness aspects that would not be easily observed in traditional\ndesign processes. By evidencing the disconnection between individual\nattitudes to global consequences in Interaction, Associa-\ntion, Defence and Exploitation cultural aspects, one of the\nmain findings of this analysis was to design for self-effi-\ncacy, making evident the impact of individual choices and\nactions. It also suggested social media and online games as\ntools to engage young people, as well as tangible alterna-\ntives for the elderly. 6.1.3 Patterns of behaviour This analysis led to design\nelements such as associating energy waste with flooding\nnew areas, and creating a space for people to freely discuss\neventual illegal connections and collective consequences\nwithout fearing judgment. This study considered the intentionality of the design in\nthe process by modelling also the expected behaviour in the\n‘‘intended reality’’ as Norms, as this example illustrates: \\ALWAYS when involved with a collective saving\nenergy challenge THEN users MUST understand the\nimportance of individual contributions to collective\nachievements.[ Considering these aspects among others (Piccolo et al. 2013, 2017), a technical artefact designed for raising col-\nlective awareness of energy, called SEEtree, was then\nproposed. The technical artefact is composed of an inter-\nactive system to set collective energy savings challenges\ncompatible with the typical consumption in the area and a\npublic and tangible feedback with led lights in the shape of\na tree. Users’ commitment, online and physical participa-\ntions are translated into the number of tree branches that\nare lighted. Beyond the physical tree, the tree was also\nrepresented virtually as part of a forest, which could be 6.1.2 Eliciting requirements informed by cultural aspects Alternatives metaphors and comparisons to represent this data should be then considered Defence\nExplored the concept of ‘‘locus of control’’ that stems from psychology, studied by Almeida (2007) in an ethnographic analysis. People that have an ‘‘external locus of control’’, believe that actions of powerful others, such as God or government, create\nchange. This belief is correlated with the educational level. People with an ‘‘internal locus of control’’, on the other hand,\nbelieve in the consequences of their own actions and are more likely to take environmental actions. The ‘‘locus of control’’\nconcept helps explain a lack of individual responsibility for externally triggered events that impact the environment, found in\nthe scenario Play\nEntertainment mediated through technology is an increasingly important cultural phenomenon. Official data about Internet usage\nreported that around 90% of users spend time online for leisure and the most popular activity among connected children is\nplaying online games Play\nEntertainment mediated through technology is an increasingly important cultural phenomenon. Official data about Internet usage\nreported that around 90% of users spend time online for leisure and the most popular activity among connected children is\nplaying online games Exploitation\nHistoric reasons and the abundance of natural resources in Brazil developed a ‘‘culture of waste’’. A restrained consumption of\nfood, energy, water, and raw material is not part of the common sense. Although the green consciousness started to emerge,\nmany people keep wasting natural resources and confuse saving resources with being greedy or miser Exploitation\nHistoric reasons and the abundance of natural resources in Brazil developed a ‘‘culture of waste’’. A restrained consumption of\nfood, energy, water, and raw material is not part of the common sense. Although the green consciousness started to emerge,\nmany people keep wasting natural resources and confuse saving resources with being greedy or miser Territoriality\nOrganisations dedicated to socio-environmental issues usually develop local leaderships for spreading a sustainable exploration\nof natural resources within a community. Using the same approach, a social technology can explore local social relations to\neducate, locally instantiating consequences of individual attitudes and demonstrating the importance of their environment for\nthe global context Territoriality\nOrganisations dedicated to socio-environmental issues usually develop local leaderships for spreading a sustainable exploration\nof natural resources within a community. 6.1.2 Eliciting requirements informed by cultural aspects Using the same approach, a social technology can explore local social relations to\neducate, locally instantiating consequences of individual attitudes and demonstrating the importance of their environment for\nthe global context Territoriality\nOrganisations dedicated to socio-environmental issues usually develop local leaderships for spreading a sustainable exploration\nof natural resources within a community. Using the same approach, a social technology can explore local social relations to\neducate, locally instantiating consequences of individual attitudes and demonstrating the importance of their environment for\nthe global context Subsistence\nWhat are the overall resource requirements to sustain a particular lifestyle? This notion is not evident to anyone. Footprint\ncalculatorsa are based on world averages and do not consider Brazilian particularities, such as hydroelectric plants, road\ntransportation, and the value of specific biomes such as the Amazon forest Subsistence\nWhat are the overall resource requirements to sustain a particular lifestyle? This notion is not evident to anyone. Footprint\ncalculatorsa are based on world averages and do not consider Brazilian particularities, such as hydroelectric plants, road\ntransportation, and the value of specific biomes such as the Amazon forest Subsistence\nWhat are the overall resource requirements to sustain a particular lifestyle? This notion is not evident to anyone. Footprint\ncalculatorsa are based on world averages and do not consider Brazilian particularities, such as hydroelectric plants, road\ntransportation, and the value of specific biomes such as the Amazon forest Fig. 5 New\nelements\nintroduced\n(underlined)\nto\nraise\nenergy\nawareness flooded to create a new dam if all the existing trees (groups\nof participants) did not contribute in the same way. Local\nnatural elements, such as common species of trees or plants\nwere also applied to represent users’ territory. Students also\nreceived some paper artefacts to be taken home so that they\ncould also engage their families in their group activities. The SEETree was introduced in the technical level,\ntriggering collaborative work to set up the saving chal-\nlenges and promoting negotiation of possible energy saving\nbehaviours in households. But it also impacted users’\nmotivations and social norms, among other aspects. Fig-\nure 5 illustrates the new elements introduced, underlined. In Piccolo et al. (2017), the interested reader can find\nmore about the impact of the SEETree and all the com-\nplexity related to sociocultural variables in play when\ndesigning and evaluating a technology in real life, beyond\nthe controlled environment of a lab. 6.1.2 Eliciting requirements informed by cultural aspects The next step goes towards transforming sociocultural\naspects into technical requirements. Data obtained from a\nsurvey in the research scenario and an anthropological\nstudy from the literature (Almeida 2007) were analysed\naccording to Hall’s PMS (Piccolo et al. 2012). In Table 2,\nwe illustrate this contribution with cultural forces found\nand the consequent design directions, highlighting some 123 123 AI & Soc Table 2 Examples of cultural aspects identified and impacts on design\nPMS\nelements\nAspects analysed and impacts on design\nInteraction\nExamining how people relate energy savings with natural environment protection, we concluded this connection is unclear or\nalmost non-existent. A new technology should focus on mediating that\nClassification\nConsidered how different generations have used technology. Multiple solutions should consider social media for the younger and\nother tangible, including non-digital artefacts, for people unfamiliar with ICTs\nAssociation\nHow people in general make sense of individual and collective responsibility in the scenario suggested weak personal\ncommitment for global resources, pointing out the need to strengthen self-efficacy, the power of individual contributions to\nsolve a big issue\nLearning\nLack of education was evidenced as a barrier to understanding abstract energy-related concepts such as kWh and CO2. Alternatives metaphors and comparisons to represent this data should be then considered\nDefence\nExplored the concept of ‘‘locus of control’’ that stems from psychology, studied by Almeida (2007) in an ethnographic analysis. People that have an ‘‘external locus of control’’, believe that actions of powerful others, such as God or government, create\nchange. This belief is correlated with the educational level. People with an ‘‘internal locus of control’’, on the other hand,\nbelieve in the consequences of their own actions and are more likely to take environmental actions. The ‘‘locus of control’’\nconcept helps explain a lack of individual responsibility for externally triggered events that impact the environment, found in\nthe scenario\nPlay\nEntertainment mediated through technology is an increasingly important cultural phenomenon. Official data about Internet usage\nreported that around 90% of users spend time online for leisure and the most popular activity among connected children is\nplaying online games\nExploitation\nHistoric reasons and the abundance of natural resources in Brazil developed a ‘‘culture of waste’’. A restrained consumption of\nfood, energy, water, and raw material is not part of the common sense. a For example, http://footprint.wwf.org.uk 6.1.2 Eliciting requirements informed by cultural aspects Although the green consciousness started to emerge,\nmany people keep wasting natural resources and confuse saving resources with being greedy or miser\nTemporality\nReducing energy consumption can have an immediate effect on saving money, but the benefits to the environment need to be\nexplained as a long-term investment. Money saving may not be enough to keep people’s motivation\nTerritoriality\nOrganisations dedicated to socio-environmental issues usually develop local leaderships for spreading a sustainable exploration\nof natural resources within a community. Using the same approach, a social technology can explore local social relations to\neducate, locally instantiating consequences of individual attitudes and demonstrating the importance of their environment for\nthe global context\nSubsistence\nWhat are the overall resource requirements to sustain a particular lifestyle? This notion is not evident to anyone. Footprint\ncalculatorsa are based on world averages and do not consider Brazilian particularities, such as hydroelectric plants, road\ntransportation, and the value of specific biomes such as the Amazon forest\na For example, http://footprint.wwf.org.uk Interaction\nExamining how people relate energy savings with natural environment protection, we concluded this connection is unclear or\nalmost non-existent. A new technology should focus on mediating that Classification\nConsidered how different generations have used technology. Multiple solutions should consider social media for the younger and\nother tangible, including non-digital artefacts, for people unfamiliar with ICTs Classification\nConsidered how different generations have used technology. Multiple solutions should consider social media for the younger and\nother tangible, including non-digital artefacts, for people unfamiliar with ICTs Association\nHow people in general make sense of individual and collective responsibility in the scenario suggested weak personal\ncommitment for global resources, pointing out the need to strengthen self-efficacy, the power of individual contributions to\nsolve a big issue Association\nHow people in general make sense of individual and collective responsibility in the scenario suggested weak personal\ncommitment for global resources, pointing out the need to strengthen self-efficacy, the power of individual contributions to\nsolve a big issue Learning\nLack of education was evidenced as a barrier to understanding abstract energy-related concepts such as kWh and CO2. Alternatives metaphors and comparisons to represent this data should be then considered Learning\nLack of education was evidenced as a barrier to understanding abstract energy-related concepts such as kWh and CO2. 6.2 Inclusive education scenario Because we tend to interpret the world through our own\ncultural lenses, the product of a design may result in a\nnarrowed comprehension of the problem and the role of\ntechnology in people’s lives; it may even mislead the\ndesign process, resulting in solutions that do not make\nsense to stakeholders, do not meet their demands and,\npossibly, trigger undesired side effects on them. In fact,\nmost of the concepts and ideas we deal with when\ndesigning technology have different facets that are situa-\ntional, varying not only according to the cultural context,\nbut also across time and space. When we discuss such\nconcepts, our discussion is a kind of snapshot in which\nsome aspects are visible and some are not. To spot things\nbeyond, we must take another snapshot, from a different\nangle. For this scenario, the Value Pie was used as a lens to\nlook at the results of the participatory activities, supporting\nresearchers to develop a wide, deep and meaningful\nunderstanding about the cultural context in which the\nsystem would operate. The second case study refers to the design of a social\nnetwork, named TNR, Portuguese acronym for ‘‘All of Us\nNetworked’’ (‘‘Todos No´s em Rede’’), which had the pur-\npose to connect Inclusive Education teachers in Brazil,\nsupporting the socialisation of their practices related to\nstudents with special needs and teachers’ continuing pro-\nfessional development (Pereira and Baranauskas 2015). By December 2016, TNR had more than 950 registered\nusers,3 and more than 850 content items (articles, docu-\nments, questions, pictures) had been shared by teachers and\nreceived more than 4500 comments. The system was\ndesigned and is maintained in an iterative and incremental\nprocess\ninformed\nby\nBaranauskas’\nSocially\nAware\napproach, in which teachers are co-designers with active\nvoice and role in the continuous design process and in the\nformation and maintenance of the network. Inclusive education is a recent achievement in Brazil not\nyet free from political, pedagogical, and economic con-\nflicts. As the world’s fifth largest country in territory and\npopulation, the diversity of socioeconomic conditions and\neven ethnicity are remarkable; habits, behaviours, and\nneeds\nalso profoundly\nvary\nthroughout\nthe\ncountry. Teachers are often not yet used to computer technologies,\nand may have some impairment themselves (e.g., visual). They also have their own way of behaving, preferences,\nprocedures, values, etc., that characterise them as a sub-\nculture that must be taken into account. 6.2 Inclusive education scenario In this scenario,\ndesigning a social network to connect teachers across the\ncountry to support collaboration and socialisation requires\nconsidering the different stakeholders, their culture (or\nsubculture) as a group, the cultural differences between\ndifferent groups of stakeholders, and the values they are\nadding to the design context. 6.1.2 Eliciting requirements informed by cultural aspects The SEETree was introduced in the technical level,\ntriggering collaborative work to set up the saving chal-\nlenges and promoting negotiation of possible energy saving\nbehaviours in households. But it also impacted users’\nmotivations and social norms, among other aspects. Fig-\nure 5 illustrates the new elements introduced, underlined. In Piccolo et al. (2017), the interested reader can find\nmore about the impact of the SEETree and all the com-\nplexity related to sociocultural variables in play when\ndesigning and evaluating a technology in real life, beyond\nthe controlled environment of a lab. Fig. 5 New\nelements\nintroduced\n(underlined)\nto\nraise\nenergy\nawareness 123 123 12 AI & Soc 3 Data from December 1st, 2016. 6.2.1 The value pie in practice Following the steps suggested in Sect. 5.4, the Value Pie\napplication guided the analysis of existing systems (activity\n1) and brainstorming sections with teachers (activity 2), as\na\nconceptual\nframework\nfor\nreflecting\nwhether\nany\nimportant aspect was being neglected, and whether we\nconsidered the stakeholders’ perspective beyond our own\nviews. The Value Pie was also applied for the activity 6 by\nteachers for guiding their discussion and to identify the\nvalues they should make explicit in their letter of princi-\nples. Rather than following the application steps previously\ndescribed, they used a set of values distributed over the\nValue Pie as a starting point for discussing their needs and\naims. To design the first version of TNR, a set of participatory\nactivities was held from September 2010 to September\n2012 involving 28 teachers, three researchers in Education,\nand four Computer Science and HCI researchers working\ntogether. The teachers were from different regions of the\ncountry and participated in both distance and face-to-face\nmeetings that aligned design with social practices. Sup-\nported by the researchers, the teachers performed the fol-\nlowing activities: (1) explored and evaluated existing\nsystems towards supporting their teaching-related prac-\ntices; (2) participated in brainstorming sessions and inter-\nviews; (3) created prototypes for the TNR; (4) provided\nfeedback on the first version of TNR and joined online\nactivities; (5) defined the system’s terms of use and con-\nditions; and (6) generated a letter of principles to guide the\nusers’ ethical behaviour in the system. Whether for triggering discussions or analysing results,\nthe value pie supported us to look at the problem and\ninformation from different perspectives and to consider:\n(i) different levels of formalism (informal, formal, techni-\ncal), (ii) cultural behavioural patterns—Hall’s (1959) areas\nof culture, and (iii) relationships of interdependence with\nother issues being considered. Therefore, the Value Pie was\na meta-artefact used to give a cultural meaning for the\nparticipatory activities. For example, privacy appeared to be a critical concept\nfor the system in the activities 1, 2 and 6. When analysing\nthe informal dimension of privacy related to learning,\nworking (subsistence), protection (defence) and associa-\ntion, it was acknowledged that teachers did not explicitly\nexpress concerns of privacy: they actually found good to\nshare their opinions and information, describe their prac-\ntices and activities in the school and their work with stu-\ndents. However, with respect to security issues (e.g., 3 AI & Soc Fig. one.’’ (Teacher 6, relating classification, association\nand play/affective areas). ‘‘It is very interesting to know the opinion of the other\nparticipants, but it must be only an indication of\nquality because not always the best contribution is\nthe one we selected.’’ (Teacher 2, relating classifica-\ntion, exploitation and association areas). If we had ignored the stakeholders’ cultural views on\nconcepts that are well known to researchers, the design\ndecisions could have led to a system that would cause\nprivacy and security problems and whose impacts would be\nhardly possible to solve or mitigate. When we approach\nconcepts from a cultural perspective, the cultural context\nexplains the reason why these concepts are important,\ndesirable and necessary for different stakeholders. ‘‘I think it is very useful to know the quality of the\ncontributions, because I consider quality as some-\nthing extremely important’’ (Teacher 4, relating\nclassification and subsistence areas). ‘‘I am interested in knowing the opinion of other\nusers, mainly the ones I like’’ (Teacher 5, also relat-\ning classification with association and play/affective\nareas). Yet another TNR example referred to the concept of\nreputation—see Fig. 6. Through the Value Pie’s lens it\nwas evidenced that, although teachers give importance to\nreputation and consider it is useful to identify the quality\nand relevance of the contributions made by other users,\nthey think that every contribution is important and can\nbring benefits. When discussing a real problem, they\nbelieve that there is not a single best individual solution,\nbut that one can be constructed by bringing together all\nthe individual contributions (i.e., in a relationship between\nthe\nassociation\nand\nclassification\nareas). Using\nthe\nteachers’ words: The analysis suggested that a mechanism for supporting\nidentification of quality and relevance should be positive,\ni.e., the presence of recognition must distinguish a contri-\nbution from others, but the absence of recognition is not\nnecessarily negative. The first version of TNR was featured\nwith possibilities to like comments, adding content items to\na favourite list, following interesting users, assigning\nsomeone for help and promoting the best contributions\naccording to users’ opinion, without penalising those not\npromoted. If we had ignored teachers’ cultural view on\nreputation mechanisms, the designed features could have\nbeen rejected by them, or even worst, they could have\ntriggered negative behaviours and emotions that would turn\nteachers away from the system, discouraging their partic-\nipation and interaction. 6.2.1 The value pie in practice 6 Reputation concept on VP and its possible relation to other\nareas someone sharing a photo of a student on Facebook) they\nbecame aware of possible impacts on their lives, on their\nstudents’ or students’ families’ lives, leading then to a\nreflection around privacy. Usually, concerns like these\nemerge only during the system usage, when a problem\narises. Therefore, the participants realised that the system\nshould be designed not only to protect the stakeholders’\nprivacy, but also to instruct users to be aware of it. Understanding how privacy was valued and perceived\nby the teachers, and reflecting with them about how pri-\nvacy could affect other stakeholders led to design decisions\nand TNR features—e.g., the new system must guide users\nregarding privacy and security issues, informing teachers\nabout the possible consequences of their actions, and\ninstructing them not to share any content that could com-\npromise their privacy or the privacy of others. As an out-\ncome, we specified norms such as ‘‘\\WHENEVER new\ndata are created in the system, IF it contains personal\ninformation of others, THEN its author MUST have the\nauthorization to use the information[’’, and \\ ‘‘WHEN-\nEVER a new content is shared to other users, IF it is\npublicly available, THEN the user MUST indicate that the\ncontent does not offer risks to his/her privacy and the\nprivacy of others’’[. Such norms were translated into\ndesign features and interface elements, such as an advice\npresented to users every time they are sharing a new con-\ntent item into the system. Fig. 6 Reputation concept on VP and its possible relation to other\nareas 7 Discussion 7 Discussion ‘‘…neither a computer nor the teaching of computer\nscience has any value or meaning outside of its\nimpact on people.’’ (Lee 1989). The ubiquitous and extreme impact of technology on\npeople’s lives in the contemporary world, more than ever,\nrequires from us ICT researchers and practitioners to\nassume the responsibility for designing technologies that\ncontribute to improving peoples’ and communities’ lives in\na way that makes sense to them, and avoiding triggering\nadverse effects by the introduction of novel technologies. As previously discussed, a technical-centred perspective on\nICT narrows our understanding of the context in which it\nis/will be introduced, making it difficult to anticipate\ndesirable (or undesirable) impacts and consequences on\nusers and stakeholders. We cannot detach a technology\nfrom the cultural context in which it was designed and\ndelivered. Instantiated in each case study reported, the socially\naware computing approach from Baranauskas (2009, 2014)\nallowed us to articulate ICT development in relation to the\nsocial practices enacted by stakeholder representatives. It\nenabled us to employ culture-based artefacts as part of a\ndesign process with other activities and demands. The\nartefacts were created/adapted to support research in situ-\nated and participatory practices, to facilitate problem\nunderstanding, solution proposal, requirements elicitation,\nand formalisation from a culturally enriched perspective. Distinct in nature and purpose, the two case studies\nintroduced in this article illustrate that a sociocultural\napproach is not tied to any design process. While the TNR\ndesign relied mainly on co-creation with teachers mediated\nby a culture-based artefact, the SEETree creation required\nanalysing secondary and quantitative data from surveys\nand studies from the literature to shape the design. In both\ncases, Organisational Semiotics (Liu 2000) provided us\nwith the lenses to see beyond technical aspects, mapping\nalso formal and informal forces that impacted on the social\nissue we were tackling, and the interaction between these\nforces. In the energy awareness case study, this approach\nrevealed that tackling energy savings within that commu-\nnity would be in vain if the solution was not considering\nthe problematic relationship some people have with energy\nproviders and the ‘‘culture’’ of fraud, formal, and informal\naspects. Also, it disclosed cultural barriers that needed to\nbe overcome to trigger users’ motivation towards protect-\ning the environment, such as the need to evidence the\nimportance of individual contributions and collaboration\ntowards a collective global achievement. one.’’ (Teacher 6, relating classification, association\nand play/affective areas). ‘‘I don’t like the idea of choosing the ‘best contri-\nbution’, because it can generate a discomfort with the\nother participants. However, I think it is very inter-\nesting to have the possibility of identifying the quality\nof the contributions, although not defining the best 12 3 3 AI & Soc Hall’s (1959) Primary Message Systems has been\nanother theoretical and analytical support framework for\nour researches and practices. Hall’s framework is abstract\nand covers almost any thinkable aspect of a design context. On the one hand, it may require further readings and\nexamples to be applied. On the other hand, to the best of\nour knowledge, not only does it cover aspects of other\ncultural approaches we reported on (e.g., Hofstede 2005;\nBeyer and Holtzblatt 1997), but also enables looking\nbeyond predefined assumptions and thus helps to reveal\nissues from the design context that would have otherwise\nremained hidden. Hall’s ten areas of culture invite us to\ninquire\nabout\nbehavioural\npatterns,\nvalues,\ncustoms,\nmaterials, resources, etc., and how they are related to each\nother, remaining open to serendipity, to every interesting\nnew aspect that may emerge. The TNR’s letter of princi-\nples is an example of a co-created by product that emerged\nfrom the participatory practices, reflecting a set of both\nexisting and desired values. 7 Discussion The areas of\nculture guided design decisions properly associating the\nright media to the right group of users, for instance adding\ntangible elements to expand engagement, identifying local\nelements that influenced graphical design (using trees,\ndams, flooding, etc.), to name a few. In contrast to tradi-\ntional design approaches, we went beyond design impli-\ncations, addressing also design intentions by properly\nmapping current and intended behaviour. Both the SEETree and TNR are part of technical\ninformation systems embedded in other systems and\ninfrastructures. They automate tasks, process and provide\ninformation, and operate according to a set of pre-defined\nnorms, rules and restrictions part of more complex formal\nsystems. Such formal systems encompass business norms,\nlaws, regulating entities and well-accepted social beha-\nviours, which determine what is allowed, expected, for-\nbidden, and accepted either for raising energy awareness or\nfor discussing real cases of students with special needs. The\nexplanation, or justification, for the formal systems relies\non the informal aspects, where people develop their values\nand wherefrom their needs originate. The informal infor-\nmation systems are where subjectivity is manifested and\nwhere the true impact of ICT on people’s life is perceived. They explain why people would be happy to see and\ninteract with the SEETree but could reject a simple energy\nmonitoring system, and why teachers are happy to share\ntheir ideas and help each other, but would reject a TNR\nfeature\nthat\nomitted\nto\nduly\nacknowledge\ntheir\ncontribution. Similarly, in the second case study, the culture-based\nartefacts brought to surface aspects that would hardly be\nevident using a ‘‘conventional’’ approach to design. It\nenabled an understanding of users’ cultural views regarding\nimportant concepts, more directly suggesting features for a\nsocial platform. It revealed the need to look at ‘‘well 123 123 123 AI & Soc AI & Soc known’’ concepts for researchers (e.g., privacy, reputation,\nsharing) from the community perspective, evidencing dif-\nferences in the value attached to such concepts. design to the importance and benefits of considering\ncultural elements. When choosing a frame of reference to talk about cul-\nture, we are already shaping our view and our discourses;\nwhen we adopt a theoretical and methodological ground,\nwe are looking at a subject from a specific angle, which\nentitles us to see some parts of the whole picture. There-\nfore, we must make clear from what perspective we are\nlooking at the subject. 8 Conclusion Wide in its meaning and number of definitions in the lit-\nerature, ‘‘Culture’’ has been extensively investigated from\nquite different perspectives in different domains. In this\npaper, we were not pursuing an ultimate definition, and do\nnot intend to unify the perspectives in ICT design. Instead,\nwe presented our approach for informing design with cul-\ntural aspects in practical terms considering our theoretical\nand methodological grounds. The two case studies presented illustrate that a culturally\ninformed perspective to design can go beyond an infor-\nmative analysis and can be integrated throughout different\ndesign processes. We introduced four culture-based arte-\nfacts: the Organisational Onion to understand the problem;\nthe Primary Message Systems, based on Hall’s (1959)\ndefinition of culture, to translate cultural aspects into\ntechnical requirements; norms definition to map current\nand desired patterns of behaviour; and the Value Pie, an\nartefact to support understanding the problem and the\ncontext from three different perspectives: the cultural nat-\nure according to Hall’s area of culture, level of formality\n(technical, formal and informal), and the interplay of cul-\ntural aspects. In the case studies, we evidenced the benefits\nand outcomes of this approach. Respecting cultural aspects when conceiving a tech-\nnology, analysing possible positive and negative impacts\nof technology adoption by a social group, and investi-\ngating methods and artefacts to support these activities\nare both a need and a challenge for all those involved\nwith ICT design. In fact, if we look at technology as a\ncultural construct that permeates human life, and if we\nrecognise how interactive technology has changed our\nlives, then this is a subject that directly or indirectly\naffects everyone. A technology cannot be detached from\nits cultural context. Technology is produced through\nintentional and rational processes influenced by the cul-\ntural background of different stakeholders, no longer only\nfor solving problems and automating tasks, but also for\nmediating complex social interactions, boosting creativity,\nplay, learning, etc. Therefore, the concern with technical\nartefacts cannot be restricted to their designed function-\nalities, but needs to encompass as well how it is going to\naffect our lives and our social environment. Thus, this\npaper presented reflections, artefacts, and real examples\nwith the intention to sensitise people involved in ICT From\nconception\nto\ndevelopment,\nevaluation,\nand\nadoption, the design process must be supported by artefacts\nthat help identifying cultural aspects and translate them\ninto sociotechnical requirements. 7 Discussion To this end, we briefly discussed\nwhat we consider as culture in the context of technology\ndesign, why we think it is important to take it into account\nin ICT design, and how it has been addressed in our work\nand other studies in the literature. We recognise that it is not always possible to include\nend users in the design process due to a wide range of\nfactors. In such case, adopting culturally informed artefacts\nis even more important to support an engagement with the\ndesign problem and to envision solutions through the lenses\nof the different stakeholders. Reflecting the amplitude and\ncomplexity of the concept of culture, there are no deter-\nministic rules for informing ICT design with cultural\naspects. The selection and application of strategies, meth-\nods, and artefacts should consider many contextual ele-\nments such as resources available and stakeholder goals. We described the applicability of different artefacts within\na Socially aware perspective to support designers in a\nbroad sense and considering a multiplicity of scenarios. Nonetheless, we recognise that further investigations can\nstill refine the artefacts and their applicability to different\ndesign processes. We subscribe to a systemic view placing the technical\nsolution as part of a more complex social system. We argue\nthat it is important to understand the informal and formal\naspects of the design context as profoundly and broadly as\npossible, considering cultural issues as an ‘‘insider’’ when\ndesigning ICTs. If we are able to understand how people\nlive and interact, develop their values and needs, their\nexpectations, desires, beliefs, etc. in a situated scenario,\nthen we may be able to design and introduce technology\nthat is appropriate for people in their cultural settings in an\ninformed and responsible way. References Liu K (2000) Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge University Press, New York Globo O (2015) Arndt Vonstaa: Erros Grosseiros. Accessed 25 Nov\n2016. (in Portuguese) Marcus A (2001) International and intercultural user interfaces. In:\nStephanidis C (ed) Users Interfaces for all: concepts, methods\nand tools. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp 47–63 Almeida AC (2007) A Cabec¸a do Brasileiro. Record, Rio de Janeiro,\np 208 (in Portuguese) Miranda LC, Hornung H, Baranauskas MCC (2010) Adjustable inter-\nactive\nrings\nfor\niDTV. IEEE\nTrans\nConsum\nElectron\n56:1988–1996 Bannon L (2011) Reimagining HCI: toward a more human-centered\nperspective. Interactions 18(4):50–57 Baranauskas MCC (2009) Socially Aware Computing. In: Proc. of VI\ninternational conference on engineering and computer education,\npp 1–5 Murray R, Caulier-Grice J, Mulgan G (2010) The open book of social\ninnovation. Young Foundation/NESTA, London Papanek V (1971) Design for the real world. Thames and Hudson,\nLondon Baranauskas MCC (2014) Social awareness in HCI. Interactions\n21(4):66–69 Peirce CS (1867–1913) Collected papers of charles sanders peirce. In:\nHartshorne C, Weiss P, Burks AW (eds) Harvard University\nPress, Cambridge, pp 1–8 Baranauskas MCC, Bonacin R (2008) Design—indicating through\nsigns. Design Issues 24:30–45 Barth F (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Little, Brown, Boston Pereira R, Baranauskas MCC (2014) Value pie: a culturally informed\nconceptual scheme for understanding values in design. Human–\nComput Interact 8510:122–133 Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1997) Contextual design: defining customer-\ncentered systems. Elsevier, San Francisco Bødker S (2006) When second wave HCI meets third wave\nchallenges. Proceedings of 4th Nordic conference on Human-\ncomputer interaction: changing roles, Norway. ACM Press,\nOslo, pp 1–8 Pereira R, Baranauskas MCC (2015) A value-oriented and culturally\ninformed approach to the design of interactive systems. Int J\nHuman–Comput Stud 80:66–82 Pereira R, de Miranda LC, Baranauskas MCC, Piccolo LSG, Almeida\nLDA, dos Reis JC (2011) Interaction design of social software:\nclarifying requirements through a culturally aware artifact. In:\n2011 international conference on information society (i-Society),\npp. 293–298 Bødker S (2015) Using IT to ‘do good’ in communities? J Community\nInf 11(2). Retrieved from http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/\narticle/view/1151/1146 Bødker S, Kristensen JF, Nielsen C, Sperschneider W (2003)\nTechnology for Boundaries. In: Proc. of the 2003 international\nconference on supporting group work (GROUP’03), ACM,\npp 311–320 Pereira R, Baranauskas MCC, Liu K (2015) The Value of Values for\nHCI: an informed discussion beyond philosophy. In: Proc. 8 Conclusion Selecting which artefacts\nare suitable to a design context is itself a result from the\nprocess of understanding design problems, reinforcing the\nsocial nature of a design process that starts in society and\nwill reflect back on it. Although the artefacts presented have been explored in\nother contexts and case studies — e.g., Baranauskas and\nBonacin (2008), Miranda et al. (2010), Pereira et al. (2015),\nPiccolo et al. (2017)—further studies with more partici-\npants, in different contexts, and investigating the impacts\nof technology on different stakeholders can certainly 12 3 3 AI & Soc Gurstein M (2007) What is community informatics (and why does it\nmatter)?. Polimetrica, Milan contribute to refine the socially aware approach. These may\ninclude further investigations about the constitution of the\nTNR social network, and future instances of the SEETree\nwithin other communities, as well as applications of the\nculture-based artefacts to different cases and contexts. More than describing the ‘‘correct way’’ of using the cul-\nture-based artefacts, we expect this to inspire further\nresearches to not only reproduce the artefacts applications,\nbut also to adapt, create and combine with new design\nprocesses and contexts, sharing new examples and out-\ncomes produced from their application. Halabi A, Sabiescu A, David S, Vannini S, Nemer D (2015) From\nexploration to design: aligning intentionality in community\ninformatics projects. J Community Inf 11(3). Retrieved from\nhttp://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/1160/1156 Hall ET (1959) The Silent Language. Doubleday, New York Hall ET (1977) Beyond culture. Doubleday, New York Hall ET (1977) Beyond culture. Doubleday, New York\nH f\nd G (2005) C l\nd\ni\ni\nf\nf h Hofstede G (2005) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind,\n2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York Holtzblatt K, Beyer HR (2013) Contextual Design. In: Soegaard\nMads, Dam Rikke Friis (eds) The encyclopedia of human-\ncomputer interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Founda-\ntion, Aarhus Isomursu M, Ervasti M, Kinnula M, Isomursu P (2011) Understand-\ning human values in adopting new technology—a case study and\nmethodological\ndiscussion. Int\nJ\nHum\nComput\nStud\n69(2011):183–200 Acknowledgements The authors thank their colleagues, research\ngroups, institutions and students for the support throughout their\nresearch; a special thanks to M.C.C. Baranauskas for her inspiring\nideas and critical feedback. The authors also thank editors and\nanonymous reviewers for their constructive contributions. Kamppuri M, Bednarik R, Tukiainen M (2006) The expanding focus\nof HCI: case culture. In: Proc. 8 Conclusion of the 4th Nordic conference on\nhuman-computer interaction: changing roles (NordiCHI ‘06),\nACM, pp 405–408 Open Access\nThis article is distributed under the terms of the\nCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://\ncreativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted\nuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give\nappropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a\nlink to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were\nmade. Kolkman M (1993) Problem articulation methodology. PhD Thesis,\nUniversity of Twente, Febo, Enschede Lee E (1989) Some suggestions on a computer science undergraduate\ncurriculum. In: COMPCON Spring’89. Thirty-Fourth IEEE\ncomputer society international conference: intellectual leverage,\nDigest of Papers. p 366 Leidner DE, Kayworth T (2006) Review: a review of culture in\ninformation systems research: toward a theory of information\ntechnology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly 30:357–399 References of the\n14th Brazilian Symposium on human factors in computing\nsystems IHC 2015, Brazilian Computer Society, 430–439 Del Gado E, Nielsen J (1996) International users interface. Wiley,\nNew York Piccolo LSG, Baranauskas MCC (2011) Motivational Aspects in\nEnergy Feedback Systems Design. In: Proc. of the 10th Brazilian\nSymposium on human factors in computing systems and the 5th\nlatin\namerican\nconference\non\nhuman-computer\ninteraction\n(IHC ? CLIHC 2011), Brazilian Computer Society, pp 313–322 Gasparini I, Pimenta MS, Palazzo JMO (2011) Vive la diffe´rence!: a\nsurvey of cultural-aware issues in HCI. In: Proc. of the X\nBrazilian symposium on human factors in computing systems,\npp 13–22 12 3 AI & Soc Schuler D, Namioka A (1993) Participatory design: principles and\npractices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale Piccolo LSG, Scharl A, Baranauskas MCC (2012) Design of Eco-\nFeedback Technology to Motivate Sustainable Behavior: Cul-\ntural Aspects in a Brazilian Context. In: Proc. of Intern. Conf. on\nInfor. Resources Manag. (Conf-IRM’12) Sellen A, Rogers Y, Harper R, Rodden T (2009) Reflecting human\nvalues in the digital age. Commun ACM 52:58–66 Sharp L (1952) Steel Axes for Stone-Age Australians. Human\nOrganization. 11(2):17–22 Piccolo LSG, Hornung H, Baranauskas MCC, Pereira R (2013)\nDesigning to Promote a New Social Affordance for Energy\nConsumption. In: Proc. of 12th IFIP conference on e-business,\ne-services, e-society. pp 213–225 Stamper RK (1993) Social norms in requirements analysis—an\noutline of MEASUR. Requirements Engineering Technical and Stamper RK (1993) Social norms in requirements analysis—an\noutline of MEASUR. Requirements Engineering Technical and\nSocial Aspects. Academic Press, New York q\ng\ng\nSocial Aspects. Academic Press, New York Piccolo LSG, Baranauskas MCC, Azevedo R (2017) A socially\ninspired energy feedback technology: challenges in a developing\nscenario. AI & Soc 32(3):383–399 Social Aspects. Academic Press, New York Stamper RK (2001) Organisational semiotics: informatics without the\ncomputer? Information, organisation and technology: studies in\norganisational semiotics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston Pipek V, Avram G, De Cindio F (2016) Introduction. Interactions\n23(1):34–35 Stamper R, Liu K, Hafkamp M, Ades Y (2000) Understanding the\nroles of signs and norms in organizations-a semiotic approach to\ninformation systems design. Behav Inf Technol 19(1):15–27 Rogers Y (2012) HCI Theory. In: Classical, modern, and contempo-\nrary. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, p 131 Tylor EB (2010) Primitive culture: researches into the development of\nmythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom. References Cambridge\nUniversity Press, Cambridge Salgado LCC, Souza CS, Leita˜o CF (2011) On the Epistemic Nature\nof Cultural Viewpoint Metaphors. In: Proc. of X Brazilian\nSymposium on Human Factors in Computer Systems, pp 23–32 y\ng\nWinograd T (1997) The design of interaction. In: Beyond calculation:\nthe next fifty years of computing. Springer, New York,\npp 149–161 Salgado LCC, de Souza CS, Leita˜o CF (2013) A journey through\ncultures: metaphors for guiding the design of cross-cultural\ninteractive systems. Springer, London Salgado L, Pereira R, Gasparini I (2015) Cultural issues in HCI:\nchallenges and opportunities. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human–\ncomputer interaction: design and evaluation, HCI 2015. Lecture\nNotes in Computer Science, vol 9169. Springer, Cham,\npp 60–70 Winschiers H, Fendler J (2007) Assumptions considered harmful: The\nNeed to Redefine Usability. In: 2nd international conference on\nusability and internationalization, pp 22–27 Yeo AW (2000) Are usability assessment techniques reliable in non-\nwestern cultures? Electron J Inf Sys Dev Ctries 3(1):1–21 12 12 123"