Responsible: Assistant Prof. Lajla Klamer, TDC, Denmark

Participants: Jeroen Heres (KPN Research, now TNO), Enid Mante (University of Utrecht), Isabella Maria Palombini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni), Carina Pettersson (Gävle University), Jo Pierson (Vrije Universiteit Brussels), Bartolomeo Sapio (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni), Tomaz Turk (University of Ljubljana)

This group was formed in April 2002 (Leidschendam) when the Capability group had reported the results of its work. The Capabilities framework was used to examine the initial adoption of ICTs. It was felt that a sensible continuation of this work could involve exploring the adoption of ICTs in a personal way. The initial idea was to call this WG ‘Intelligent living’, but as a result of the planning of the conference, ‘The Good The Bad and the Irrelevant’ (Helsinki Sep. 2003), they decided to use the title from one of the conference themes, ‘Users as Innovators’.

The workgroup focused on the social dynamics of the society and users' decisions. The main questions were:

• which factors have a bearing on innovation
• what makes people decide to use ICTs
• which factors influence the processes of domestication
• which factors are strong push and pull factors e.g. governmental policy
• how does the social context of users shape ICT use and how do ICTs shape social life?
  

Results

The workgroup produced small reports on various areas, and as a first step it focused on changing notions of ICT innovation:

• Current notions about innovation within the information society: the adoption and use of new ICTs
  
  a) Assumptions in the policy domain
  
  - Developing ICTs and providing access for all will automatically lead to all kinds of societal benefits (e.g. the 2005 e-Europe action plan indicates that broadband development and use will increase the quality of life of all Europeans). Hence enormous investments are made to fulfil the technological goals, like developing appropriate infrastructures and stimulating digital service developments. Policy makers assume that standardisation and regulation are sufficient to account for users’ interest.
  
  b) Assumptions in the engineering and design domain
  
  - Technology is seen within an opportunity paradigm. An information society will be implemented whenever technological constraints can be overcome; technological development is usually the starting point for innovation (i.e. the ‘technology push’ or ‘technological determinism’ model).
  
  c) Assumptions in the research domain
  
  - Here we find the tradition of looking at the ‘use of ICTs’ (e.g. the work of COST 248 and 269) from a user starting point. The needs and capabilities of users should be understood in order to be able to develop ICTs that will be useful and usable. The context of everyday life should be addressed; innovation should be user-centred. (i.e. the ‘technology pull’ or social constructivist model).
• New notions about innovation in the design-phase: the user as an additional stakeholder in the development process.
  Innovations cannot not be constructed, only co-constructed: co-construction is the central paradigm. Users define their own uses in personal ways; therefore one should not exclude them in the design phase — users can be innovators. The co-construction of ICTs refers to a joint effort of engineers, policy makers and users to create adequate products and services, the need to overcome disciplinary boundaries being one of the main conclusions of our conference (see below).
  This notion implies a challenge. While knowledge about use and users has developed considerably during recent decades, the application of that knowledge in design is under-developed. Sharing experiences, developing methodologies (e.g. the living lab approach) and conceptualising and refining theoretical frameworks is of eminent importance.
• New notions about innovation in the usage phase: the social dynamical context shapes (innovative) use. ICTs innovation in a social dynamic context.
  From the first step of ICT awareness till the final step of domesticated use and renewal of use, the social context plays a defining role. Once ICTs are being used, that use is itself embedded in a social context, as users interact with friends, family, colleagues, institutions, etc. Without such social embeddedness the use of ICTs may well fade away.
  The use of ICTs takes place in relation to and through social networks. The relationship between people’s social environment and the use of ICTs is both reciprocal and dynamic, changing over time: not only do social networks influence the use of ICT, but the very use of ICTs can itself reshape the social environment in which people live. This mutual shaping process both enhances and limits the possibilities for developing the information society and diffusing new ICTs.
  

The result of the discussions in the group is found in an extended paper The Social Dynamics of ICT Use (Klamer et al, 2004), discussing subjects such as the social dynamics of professional domestication; social capital, quality of life and ICT; the adoption of digital terrestrial TV; citizens and government; new ways of bringing quality of life to elderly people. Further research on the issues is needed and a ‘natural’ continuation in a new action discussed in the section on self-evaluation could be a workgroup looking more specifically on the broadband aspects of ICTs.