Information Grounds and Computing

With one of the PPI’s purposes behind its creation (see Section 2.4.3) be- ing to help develop systems for information grounds, “a first step at or- ganising information ground attributes for the purpose of informing system de-

sign” (Fisher et al. 2006, p.1). It could be assumed then that there has

been a great deal of work into how computing technology and information grounds work together. This is not the case. There is an absence of research into how technology of any kind impacts, or is impacted by, information grounds. This section will look at the limited research into how computing

technology has been presented in information grounds research and inves- tigate some attempts at the integration more technology into information grounds.

Technology use in information grounds

The theory of Information grounds is relatively new—sufficiently recent enough that most information grounds researched are very likely to have one or more computing devices as part of the place. What part this plays in the information ground has been poorly reported, with computing tech- nology often being presented as an additional information source, a new way that people in the information ground can generate and share infor- mation. It most commonly appears in thehow created and shared category in the PPI.

In a large ethnographic study into immigrants at a New York Public Library (arguably a place that is not an information ground), Fisher et al. (2004) investigated the information ground that emerged in the library. The only mention of computing in the study revolved around the library’s public computers, which were used by the immigrants for maintaining cul- tural and personal connections:“They remain in touch with their roots through technology services”, and for building up technical literacy: “They can practice their technology skills with library computers”(Fisher et al. 2004, p.761-762).

A much larger study using a phone survey of 612 people’s informa- tion habits and information grounds revealed that the most common and trusted information source was close friends and family, but the internet was the second most used source (Fisher et al. 2005). This approach, how- ever, again sees the computer as a magical device. The assumption that the computer is simply an additional information source is a powerful one in information grounds research.

2.4. INFORMATION GROUNDS

A study investigating the information habits of tweenslooked in great depth at the information habits of people aged 9–13 through a variety of different theoretical lenses (Meyers, Fisher and Marcoux 2009, p.322). This study produced numerous different observations about the relevance of technology to this age group, including the importance of mobile devices. Cell-phones were the preferred method of tool-based communication (Mey- ers et al. 2009). This importance was echoed again when the children were asked what components made them consider one information ground over another. Computer access was one of the four listed (Meyers et al. 2009). Other interesting observations related to how they used computers, with there being less of an insight into the device and more into use of“mem-

orised strategies and common routes”to finding information online (Meyers

et al. 2009, p.322). Even when there were computers available for every child, they would commonly work together and share the single computer. They were using the devices socially (Meyers et al. 2009).

This study may well be the most in-depth information grounds research that had a focus on computing. Even though the study still took the ap- proach that the computer was mostly just a device to provide additional information, it showed that computing technology is now an important tool for information gathering and social purposes.

Digital Information Grounds

The spaces the information grounds exist within do not have to be physi- cal. They can be virtual: purely digital walls and constructs existing only within the bounds of technology. Such information grounds would obvi- ously be different to those previously discussed, but should still exhibit the characteristics of an information ground.

sis of the early mobile social network Slam (Counts and Fisher 2008). Slam was both a Windows Mobile application with an interface akin to a tradi- tional SMS application as well as a desktop application similar to a chat system. The social network was based around messages, where messages could be sent directly to an individual or to a preconfigured Slam group. Messages were text, an image, or both (Slam2003).

Whilst Slam was not created specifically to be an information ground, it was nonetheless analysed as if it was one. Indeed the entire premise of the particular research was that the information grounds framework could be used as a lens to understand mobile social software (Counts and Fisher 2008). As such, this study is a good example to see how information grounds hold up when applied to a fully digital place.

The conclusions of the study revealed some issues with the information grounds framework as it currently existed when applied to such different environments than that for which it was created. Any modification of the framework should be a good thing; the constant challenging and adapta- tion of ideas is how we advance our understanding. In the case of the Slam study, however, there was more than an adaptation.

Some of the propositions required minor tweaks to the definition, such as changing the initial requirement that people congregate physically to simply congregating regardless of the medium. There were two proposi- tions that did not fit with the observed place: “People gather at information grounds for a primary, instrumental purpose other than information sharing”

(Fisher et al. 2006, p.1) and“Social interaction is a primary activity at infor- mation grounds such that information flow is a by-product”(Fisher et al. 2006, p.1).

The information sharing amongst participants was very specific and the reason for people being a part of the Slam network was for the infor-

2.4. INFORMATION GROUNDS

mation it generated. The amount of cross-chatter amongst people in the Slam network was reduced simply because of the technological nature of the interface making it difficult to initiate a conversation with a nearby person (Counts and Fisher 2008). The way people were using Slam was in direct opposition to those propositions.

The conflicting propositions are both from the Purpose category (see Section 2.4.1), and, as stated, this research considers this to be the critical category of propositions that make up an information ground. To require significant modification to, or removal of the defining components of an information ground to fit a place into the framework is the same as a place

notbeing an information ground in the eyes of this researcher.

The Slam study did, however, still find that mobile technology does

“mediate barriers of time and place that hinder the formation of information grounds

in traditional physical settings” (Counts and Fisher 2008, p.161). This indi-

cates that there still is potential in using mobile technology to get around the issue of needing people to be co-located to communicate in an infor- mation ground.

Slam was not the only digital place investigated as an information ground. Another study looked at the information behaviours of players in Second Life, exploring the place as if it were an information ground (Lin, Eisen- berg and Marino 2010). Despite being only a short study it was discovered that Second Life functioned quite well as an information ground, with peo- ple integrating the web outside of the game in conjunction with the virtual world of the game itself and information flowing between players and peo- ple (Lin et al. 2010). Why Second Life did better than Slam as an informa- tion ground may be due to the shared common ground between the players of Second Life that participants of Slam did not possess. Not everything about Second Life worked perfectly as an information ground. In partic-

ular, despite a shared common ground there were significant issues with shared awareness amongst people in the virtual world (Lin et al. 2010). The study of Second Life as an information ground offers tantalising evidence that technology is not a barrier preventing the creation of a virtual infor- mation ground, but it does still present challenges over a physical space.

Technology Mediated Information Grounds

Thus far the information grounds research presented has examined how technology has been used in information grounds or as information grounds. Finally, there is the situation of using technology to help create or sustain information grounds. Arguably, in the case of the Second Life or Slam in- formation grounds (Counts and Fisher 2008, Lin et al. 2010), the technology was required to keep the ground alive. It was not so much technology me- diated rather as the technology took the place of the physical environment that would normally support an information ground. This section will dis- cuss a single case by Kelder and Lueg (2009) of using technology to help encourage an information ground to form.

So far when the term technology has been used it is in relation to com- puting technology. In this instance however, the technology was Pink branding (Kelder and Lueg 2009, 2011), posters and signage applied to stalls. This branding is far less advanced than computing technology but just as effective.

Kelder and Lueg (2011) performed a 12 month ethnographic study into information seeking based both around the breast cancer awareness Pink branding (Pink Ribbon Inc. 2014) and the mobile nature of a Tasmanian Community Education and Recruitment (CER) officer attempting to spread awareness of breast cancer (Kelder and Lueg 2009, 2011). A part of the CER officer’s activities involved setting up breast cancer awareness stalls

2.4. INFORMATION GROUNDS

at various events around Tasmania. These awareness stalls used the Pink branding to help identify their purpose to the general public. From these stalls the researchers observed and argued that the stalls were being trans- formed into an information ground, all being mediated by the initial Pink branding as an impetus for the initial attraction to or purpose of the infor- mation ground (Kelder and Lueg 2009, 2011).

This ad-hoc information ground was acknowledged to have some is- sues, primarily with the purpose of the information ground. A stall does not just appear by itself and was actively created with the goal in mind of spreading information about breast cancer. This obviously is at odds with the information grounds proposition“People gather at information grounds for a primary, instrumental purpose other than information sharing”(Fisher et al. 2004, p.756). However, as stated in the research, it was the branding that created the attraction, not the information, which is why the researchers declared the stall an information ground. A less focussed aspect of the research is the mobile nature of the ad-hoc information ground. New in- formation grounds were being formed as the CER officer moved the stalls around the state, all through the medium of the Pink branding. The Pink branding when being applied to stalls was causing the creation of infor- mation grounds.

The above study is so far the only one to explore how people can create information grounds using technology, and even then it was not the fo- cus of the research but an observed aside as part of their study. Nonethe- less it does show that there is some potential towards creating information grounds on an ad-hoc basis.