INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG MARCH–APRIL 2015 INTERACTIONS 55
raised the example of machines used
to milk cows on industrial dairy
farms. Would we or could we ever see
the cows as users? Just as we recognize
that non-use may be non-volitional,
we must also consider the possibility of
non-volitional use.
RETHINKING THE USER
Cases like these point to opportunities
for studies of technology non-use in
its various forms to serve as a useful
analytic lever for unpacking and
deconstructing the notion of user. Early
HCI work, Padma Chirumamilla points
out, originally crafted the user as a way
of describing a wished-for, but as of then
nonexistent, audience. If we recognize
the user as aspirational but incomplete,
how might we conceptualize the various
forms of non-user? And if our practice-based approach renders the terms user
and non-user equally unsatisfying, what
alternatives might we consider?
Our discussions suggested that
user often masks one or more other
potentially more descriptive terms, such
as fan, player, client, audience, patient,
customer, employee, hacker, prosumer,
conscript, administrator, and so on. Not
only does each of these terms provide an
opportunity to rethink the specificities
of the user, it also allows for considering
more fully what we mean by non-use
in different contexts. For some of these
terms, though, the non prefix seems
ill-suited. Non-hackers Non-players?
Perhaps, despite its issues, the term
user does retain at least some utility in
certain contexts.
Similarly, one might ask: When
does non-use even become a question?
Sociologically speaking, non-use obtains
visibility or salience when the diffusion
of a technology crosses some threshold
of ubiquity, at which point non-use
becomes the exception and thus notably
conspicuous. For example, Claude
Fischer describes both when and how
a telephone, or a lack thereof, became
an indicator of household poverty
[ 4]. Gregg compares this threshold to
Adrienne Rich’s notion of compulsory
heterosexuality [ 5] in considering
ramifications of the default assumption
of technology use and users.
This leads us to question when
and why non-use becomes interesting
to us as researchers. One aspect
deals with the complexity of the
technology and the forms of literacy
necessary to operate it. General-
C
purpose technologies intended for
non-specialists may give rise to more
interesting cases of non-use than
technologies that are used as part of a
professional trade and require specialist
knowledge. For example, would you
find it more interesting to discover that
a colleague was a hammer non-user or a
Zamboni non-user? In general, why in
the case of certain technologies does it
make less sense to talk about non-use?
BEYOND INDIVIDUALS
Such questions move us beyond
discussions of non-user as an individual
(identity or practice) to exploring
the sociality of non-use. Indeed,
communitarian approaches can
sometimes help upend traditional
assumptions about certain groups’
technology use. For example, Rachel
Magee et al. describe how many people
assume a “digital natives” narrative about
teen technology use. In contrast, their
work takes an ecological approach to
show how teens’ non/use does not hinge
on individual technologies but rather is
often positioned in relation to a complex
array of devices and systems. Conversely,
Ems’s work shows how the Amish do not
eschew all technology but rather negotiate
as a community how the non/use of
various technologies intersects with their
religious values and cultural norms.
In many ways, the terms user and
non-user imply a rational, coherent,
and firmly bounded self that may not
align well with these sociocultural
considerations. It was noted that most
S
of the workshop participants pursued a
standard pattern of actor-centric study,
for example, by conducting interviews
with, or surveys of, non-users. Plaut
offered another way of approaching the
methodological challenges of studying
a non-phenomenon by tracing the
many manifestations of a particular
technology of non-use, such as the
Swear Jar.
This move to transcend analysis
of individuals also draws attention to
some broader concerns. For example,
when asked to list the technologies
in their home, very few (first world)
householders will mention electricity,
despite its pervasiveness. As a point
of contrast, Jenna Burrell notes that
in her fieldwork in Ghana, informants
would routinely point to any device
plugged into an electrical outlet, from
televisions and stereos to refrigerators
and kitchen blenders, as instances
of technology. Would it be possible,
then, to be a non-user of electricity?
It might be technically feasible to
live “off the grid” and not rely on
municipal sources of electricity,
but being a complete non-user of
any item that required electricity
in manufacture, transportation,
or even use seems quite difficult. A
similar line of reasoning was raised
about the possibility or feasibility
of being a non-user of the economy.
Such questions move beyond thinking
about the non-user as an individual
and instead take into account a larger
sociotechnical milieu. I M A
G
E
B
Y
D
I
T
T
Y
-
B
Y
-
S
U
M
M
E
R
/
S
H
U
T
T
E
R
T
O
C
K
.
C
O
M