Readings
Week 1 - Ian Hutchby || Technologies, Text and Affordances
Context: Sociology of Technology
Recent sociology has shifted from viewing technology as deterministic (causing social change) to focusing on the social shaping of technology, influenced by social constructivist perspectives.
Social constructivism argues both the form and meaning of technological artifacts are socially shaped, not determined by inherent characteristics.
Key Theoretical Debate
Traditional technological determinism sees technology as driving social change.
Social constructivists challenge the idea of intrinsic technological properties, emphasizing the intertwining of social processes and technology.
Actor-network theory (ANT) and the work of Grint and Woolgar offer influential but varying anti-essentialist critiques, aiming to avoid assigning inherent properties to technologies.
Grint and Woolgar’s Anti-Essentialism
They argue technological artifacts lack inherent properties outside human interpretation.
Criticize both realism (objects have inherent qualities) and some constructivist approaches that fall back into realist assumptions.
Example: The story of catalysts in electric car development shows how even constructivists can slip into assuming intrinsic properties.
Technologies as Texts
Grint and Woolgar propose viewing technologies as “texts” written (configured) by designers and “read” (interpreted) by users.
Interpretive flexibility exists—users can adopt unanticipated uses, but the text metaphor risks ignoring material constraints and overemphasizing discourse.
Problems with Pure Constructivism
The “technology as text” metaphor assumes artifacts as blank slates, ignoring how some affordances limit interpretative openness.
Example: Telephones and fruit machines offer different affordances—not all artifacts are equally open to all interpretations.
The Concept of Affordances
Draws on J.J. Gibson’s notion: Affordances are the functional and relational aspects of an object that frame possible actions (neither purely constructed nor strictly inherent).
Affordances depend on both the materiality of artifacts and the context of their use; they are enabling and constraining.
Affordances are relational (vary by context and user) and can be learned, designed, or emerge from use.
Application and Empirical Implications
Advocates for a “third way” focusing on affordances, reconciling constructivist emphasis on agency and realist attention to material constraints.
Example: In usability trials, users’ actions are framed by the affordances of the technology (e.g., sockets that only accept certain plugs) rather than by text-like interpretation alone.
Conclusions and Theoretical Contribution
Argues for more attention to the material affordances of technologies in social analysis, showing that affordances limit but do not determine possible uses.
Critiques solely discursive approaches for missing the practical consequences of materiality.
Key Points for Note-taking
Affordances: Possibilities for action, shaped by both artifact and user.
Materiality: Not just physical form, but any feature that affords/constrains action.
Critique of constructivism: Need to empirically analyze how material affordances shape use and interpretation.
Empirical focus: Study how users manage constraints/opportunities created by affordances in specific cases.
References and Influences
Draws on Gibson (affordances), Grint and Woolgar (anti-essentialism), and classic works in the sociology of technology.
Places the discussion in the context of ongoing debates between realism, constructivism, and actor-network theory.
Week 1 - Towards an Inventory of Social Media Affordances
Purpose and Contribution
The paper develops a comprehensive inventory of social media affordances (SMA), arguing that these go beyond purely functional or action-oriented possibilities.
It introduces categories: affective, cognitive, sensory, functional, control, and real affordances, emphasizing both observable and non-observable affordances.
The framework is intended to help social media designers, users, and researchers better understand how social media supports different user goals and behaviors.
Background: Affordance Theory in Social Media
Social media affordances are the opportunities or possibilities for action enabled by the properties/features of platforms in relation to the user’s goals and efforts.
Prior research has mainly focused on functional affordances (e.g., sharing, networking), neglecting affective, cognitive, and sensory possibilities that influence user experience.
Affordances can be:
Real/Physical: Directly enabled by design
Cognitive: Pertaining to perception, interpretation, identity, or reputation
Affective: Linked to emotions such as enjoyment and admiration
Sensory: Related to senses (visual, audio, etc.)
Control: Allow managing constraints or privacy
Key Definitions
Affordances: Possibilities for action provided by technology to users, not simply functions or outcomes.
Affordance Process: Exist – Perceived – Actualized:
Existence: Whether the affordance is designed into the system
Perception: Whether users recognize the affordance
Actualization: Whether users leverage the affordance to achieve goals
Inventory of Social Media Affordances
Table of Common Affordances:
Functional: Communication, connectivity, visibility, presence, participation, ideation, socialization
Cognitive: Identity, reputation management
Affordances are not the features themselves, but the action possibilities that features enable; they are variable and not fixed outcomes.
Categories and Dimensions
Table of IT Affordance Categories (adapted from Hartson and others):
Real (Physical): Affordances embedded in system design (e.g., profile creation)
Cognitive: Perceived possibilities (e.g., self-expression via profile)
Sensory: Those arising from user senses (e.g., noticing colors or sounds)
Affective: Facilitate emotional expression/interpersonal feelings (e.g., enjoyment, gratitude)
Functional: Goal-oriented (e.g., posting, networking)
Control: Managing constraints (e.g., privacy settings, selective sharing)
Observable vs. Non-Observable Affordances
Non-Observable Affordances: Less behavioral/visible, such as affective, cognitive, and sensory possibilities; influence how users interpret or approach technology, often unconsciously.
Observable Affordances: Actionable and visible, like posting, commenting, and content moderation; closely linked to user behavior and effort.
Non-observable affordances influence observable affordances, forming an interdependent system.
Key Propositions
Social media’s features (real affordances) positively influence non-observable affordances (affective, sensory, cognitive).
Example: The color or sound of a notification may evoke an emotional or cognitive response.
At the observable level, functional and control affordances are influenced by other affordances, and control affordances mediate functional ones.
Example: Privacy controls can influence a user’s willingness to participate and communicate.
Implications
Designers should consider a broad range of affordances when building and evaluating social media platforms, moving beyond just observable/functional uses.
Understanding and distinguishing between the existence, perception, and actualization of affordances helps in improving technology adoption and user satisfaction.
Methodology and Future Research
The paper proposes a mixed-methods approach (qualitative then quantitative) to further develop and validate the comprehensive SMA inventory and the relationships proposed.
Calls for deeper consideration of less-visible affordances, like affective and sensory, and their role in shaping user engagement and the effects of social media technology.
Conclusion
Emphasizes the multi-dimensional nature of social media affordances, which span feeling, thinking, sensing, acting, and controlling actions.
Offers a refined conceptual framework for IT and social media research that supports a richer understanding of user-technology interactions beyond observable behavior.