![The general recognition of information systems design as a legitimate field of inquiry may
be based on an interpretation that this is a form of computing research, broadly conceived. In
conducting such work, a university is seen to traffic in contemporary scholarship of importance to
society and its economic drivers. However, to many of us, what is really interesting about information
systems is less the technological component and more the human or social aspects that underlie the
study of systems use and impact. The very ubiquity that makes disciplinary ownership of information
research so difficult to pinpoint becomes, in another light, the motivator for studying human behavior
in this context, offering perhaps the greatest potential for building bridges between MIS and HCI.
Interdisciplinary sharing is no easy matter. Concepts that are familiar and routinely used in one
discipline may trigger confusion or misunderstanding in another. Expectations or standards of
evidence or theory building differ, and what constitutes an important question in one area may be
deemed irrelevant or of secondary concern in the other. MIS is arguably more theoretically
advanced than HCI, where there has been a longstanding debate about the real value of theory to
designers (e.g., Landauer, 1991), though one might counter that the form of theory most used in
MIS is heavily borrowed from elsewhere and makes few original contributions to the science of
human activities. Perhaps most difficult to overcome is the publishing trajectory of each disci-
pline’s researchers. Scholars tend to populate publishing niches: a fixed set of journals, confer-
ences, and networks where familiarity breeds communicative styles for inclusion and exclusion.
These niches serve as powerful gatekeepers that render both bridge building and bridge crossing
difficult. The reward structure in academia can lead to very narrow views of appropriate outlets
for work (e.g., Mylonopoulos and Theoharakis, 2001). MIS departments tend to have more con-
servative publishing expectations than their HCI equivalents, frequently hiring and promoting on
the basis of publication record in a rather narrow but specified range of “A” journals. The low
cross-citation pattern one observes between these and other fields is evidence of this. For real
intellectual synergy to occur, the common ground must be readily apparent and allow recognition
to follow.
FINDING COMMON GROUND
Emphasis within MIS is given to planning, designing, and implementing technical systems, examin-
ing the human acceptance and use of these systems, and then evaluating the consequences of use
for the organization involved. This is a broad terrain, especially as information systems have
evolved and their uses have expanded. Current MIS research covers topics that twenty years ago
were nonexistent (e.g., Galletta et al. [2004] on user tolerance of Web site delays, a paper that
would be seen by many as mainstream HCI research). As a result, there are multiple outlets for
MIS papers and distinct emphases within certain MIS schools on areas or types of IS research.
The core literature suggests the existence of a robust discipline, so much so that Baskerville and
Myers (2002) argue that it should serve as a model for other disciplines, even if MIS departments
occupy a unique space in terms of the lack of pressure on faculty to fund their research through
competitive grants. But even when a discipline’s arrival seems agreed upon, there may always
be an identity crisis, as Benbasat and Zmud (2003) now claim exists in MIS as a result of over-
diversification. Indeed, Lyytinen and King (2004) argue that feelings of inadequacy within MIS
are almost as old as the discipline itself.
The terrain covered by MIS is at least partly mirrored by research in HCI, which involves itself
with the design and use of interactive technologies with a view to supporting the development of
more usable and humanly acceptable systems (Shackel, 1997). Indeed, HCI research over the
last twenty years has demonstrated wide-ranging interest in myriad technologies, often far from the
22 DILLON](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/878949-250609185204-450af8e9/85/Human-Computer-Interaction-And-Management-Information-Systems-Foundations-Ping-Zhang-41-320.jpg)
Human Computer Interaction And Management Information Systems Foundations Ping Zhang
- 1. Human Computer Interaction And Management Information Systems Foundations Ping Zhang download https://ebookbell.com/product/human-computer-interaction-and- management-information-systems-foundations-ping-zhang-1757898 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Humancomputer Interaction And Innovation In Handheld Mobile And Wearable Technologies 1st Edition Joanna Lumsden https://ebookbell.com/product/humancomputer-interaction-and- innovation-in-handheld-mobile-and-wearable-technologies-1st-edition- joanna-lumsden-2440408 Humancomputer Interaction And Beyond Advances Towards Smart And Interconnected Environments Part I Nirmalya Thakur https://ebookbell.com/product/humancomputer-interaction-and-beyond- advances-towards-smart-and-interconnected-environments-part-i- nirmalya-thakur-35175572 Humancomputer Interaction And Operators Performance Optimizing Work Design With Activity Theory G Z Bednyi Waldemar Karwowski https://ebookbell.com/product/humancomputer-interaction-and-operators- performance-optimizing-work-design-with-activity-theory-g-z-bednyi- waldemar-karwowski-4118720 Humancomputer Interaction And Knowledge Discovery In Complex Unstructured Big Data Third International Workshop Hcikdd 2013 Held At Southchi 2013 Maribor Slovenia July 13 2013 Proceedings 1st Edition Cagatay Turkay https://ebookbell.com/product/humancomputer-interaction-and-knowledge- discovery-in-complex-unstructured-big-data-third-international- workshop-hcikdd-2013-held-at-southchi-2013-maribor-slovenia- july-13-2013-proceedings-1st-edition-cagatay-turkay-4241684
- 3. Humancomputer Interaction And Cybersecurity Handbook Moallem https://ebookbell.com/product/humancomputer-interaction-and- cybersecurity-handbook-moallem-9953322 Engineering Human Computer Interaction And Interactive Systems Joint Working Conferences Ehcidsvis 2004 Hamburg Germany July 1113 2004 Revised Selected Papers 1st Edition Bonnie E John https://ebookbell.com/product/engineering-human-computer-interaction- and-interactive-systems-joint-working-conferences- ehcidsvis-2004-hamburg-germany-july-1113-2004-revised-selected- papers-1st-edition-bonnie-e-john-4604458 Gesturebased Humancomputer Interaction And Simulation 7th International Gesture Workshop Gw 2007 Lisbon Portugal May 2325 2007 Revised Selected Miguel Sales Dias https://ebookbell.com/product/gesturebased-humancomputer-interaction- and-simulation-7th-international-gesture-workshop-gw-2007-lisbon- portugal-may-2325-2007-revised-selected-miguel-sales-dias-2537658 Gesturebased Humancomputer Interaction And Simulation 7th International Gesture Workshop Gw 2007 Lisbon Portugal May 2325 2007 Revised Selected Papers 1st Edition Radudaniel Vatavu https://ebookbell.com/product/gesturebased-humancomputer-interaction- and-simulation-7th-international-gesture-workshop-gw-2007-lisbon- portugal-may-2325-2007-revised-selected-papers-1st-edition-radudaniel- vatavu-4141906 Gesture In Humancomputer Interaction And Simulation 6th International Gesture Workshop Gw 2005 Berder Island France May 1820 2005 Revised Selected Papers 1st Edition Jeanlouis Vercher Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/gesture-in-humancomputer-interaction- and-simulation-6th-international-gesture-workshop-gw-2005-berder- island-france-may-1820-2005-revised-selected-papers-1st-edition- jeanlouis-vercher-auth-4635658
- 7. Advances in Management Information Systems Advisory Board Eric K. Clemons University of Pennsylvania Thomas H. Davenport Accenture Institute for Strategic Change and Babson College Varun Grover Clemson University Robert J. Kauffman University of Minnesota Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. University of Arizona Andrew B. Whinston University of Texas
- 8. ADVANCES IN MANAGEMENT I N F OR M AT ION S Y S T E M S VLADIMIR ZWASS SERIES EDITOR AMS M.E.Sharpe Armonk, New York London, England PING ZHANG DENNIS GALLETTA EDITORS HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS: FOUNDATIONS FOREWORD BY BEN SHNEIDERMAN
- 9. 4 AUTHOR To Gerry DeSanctis for her encouragement and inspiration PZ and DG —————————— Copyright © 2006 by M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 80 Business Park Drive, Armonk, New York 10504. References to the AMIS papers should be as follows: Kasper, G.M., and Andoh-Baidoo, F.K. Advancing the theory of DSS design for user calibration. P. Zhang and D. Galletta, eds., Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations. Advances in Management Information Systems, Volume 5 (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2006), 61–89. ISBN-13 978-0-7656-1486-5 ISBN-10 0-7656-1486-3 ISSN 1554-6152 Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z 39.48-1984. ~ BM (c) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ADVANCES IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS AMIS Vol. 1: Richard Y. Wang, Elizabeth M. Pierce, AMIS Vol. 4: Michael J. Shaw Stuart E. Madnick, and Craig W. Fisher E-Commerce and the Digital Economy Information Quality ISBN-13 978-0-7656-1150-5 ISBN-13 978-0-7656-1133-8 ISBN-10 0-7656-1150-3 ISBN-10 0-7656-1133-3 AMIS Vol. 2: Sergio deCesare, Mark Lycett, AMIS Vol. 5: Ping Zhang and Dennis Galletta Robert D. Macredie Human-Computer Interaction and Management Development of Component-Based Information System Information Systems: Foundations ISBN-13 978-0-7656-1248-9 ISBN-13 978-0-7656-1486-5 ISBN-10 0-7656-1248-8 ISBN-10 0-7656-1486-3 AMIS Vol. 3: Jerry Fjermestad and AMIS Vol. 6: Dennis Galletta and Ping Zhang Nicholas C. Romano, Jr. Human-Computer Interaction and Management Electronic Customer Relationship Management Information Systems: Applications ISBN-13 978-0-7656-1327-1 ISBN-13 978-0-7656-1487-2 ISBN-10 0-7656-1248-1 ISBN-10 0-7656-1487-1 Forthcoming volumes of this series can be found on the series homepage. www.mesharpe.com/amis.htm Editor-in-Chief Vladimir Zwass zwass@fdu.edu
- 10. CONTENTS Series Editor’s Introduction Vladimir Zwass vii Foreword Ben Shneiderman ix 1. Foundations of Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems: An Introduction 1 Ping Zhang and Dennis Galletta Part I. Disciplinary Perspectives and the Users 2. Information Interactions: Bridging Disciplines in the Creation of New Technologies Andrew Dillon 21 3. HCI as MIS Adrienne Olnick Kutzschan and Jane Webster 32 4. Who Is the User? Individuals, Groups, Communities Gerardine DeSanctis 48 Part II. IT Development: Theories of Individual and Group Work 5. Advancing the Theory of DSS Design for User Calibration George M. Kasper and Francis K. Andoh-Baidoo 61 6. Decisional Guidance: Broadening the Scope Mark S. Silver 90 7. Coordination Theory: A Ten-Year Retrospective Kevin Crowston, Joseph Rubleske, and James Howison 120 v
- 11. Part III. IT Development: Theories of Fit 8. The Theory of Cognitive Fit: One Aspect of a General Theory of Problem Solving? Iris Vessey 141 9. Task-Technology Fit: A Critical (But Often Missing!) Construct in Models of Information Systems and Performance Dale L. Goodhue 184 10. Designs That Fit: An Overview of Fit Conceptualizations in HCI Dov Te’eni 205 Part IV. IT Use and Impact: Beliefs and Behavior 11. Computer Self-Efficacy: A Review Deborah Compeau, Jane Gravill, Nicole Haggerty, and Helen Kelley 225 12. Behavioral Information Security: An Overview, Results, and Research Agenda Jeffrey M. Stanton, Kathryn R. Stam, Paul M. Mastrangelo, and Jeffrey A. Jolton 262 13. Interpreting Security in Human-Computer Interactions: A Semiotic Analysis Gurpreet Dhillon and Jeffrey May 281 Part V. IT Use and Impact: Affect, Aesthetics, Value, and Socialization 14. The Role of Affect in Information Systems Research: A Critical Survey and a Research Model Heshan Sun and Ping Zhang 295 15. Aesthetics in Information Technology: Motivation and Future Research Directions Noam Tractinsky 330 16. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Jr., and Alan Borning 348 17. Socializing Consistency: From Technical Homogeneity to Human Epitome Clifford Nass, Leila Takayama, and Scott Brave 373 Part VI. Reflections 18. On the Relationship Between HCI and Technology Acceptance Research Fred D. Davis 395 19. Human Factors, CHI, and MIS Jonathan Grudin 402 Editors and Contributors 423 Series Editor 431 Index 433 vi CONTENTS
- 12. SERIES EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION VLADIMIR ZWASS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF It is the objective of the AMIS monographs to codify research in the field of management informa- tion systems (MIS). To fulfill this mission, the volumes in the series need to go beyond presenting the current state of our knowledge. We have to equip researchers with tools for generating new knowledge, by comparatively dissecting the theories, by presenting exemplars of research, and by discussing the streams and methods of knowledge generation within the subfields of the discipline. The domain of MIS centers on the development, use, and impacts of organizational informa- tion systems. The present volume is devoted to human-computer interaction (HCI) research in MIS. The broad area of HCI focuses on human interaction with information technologies. It is vital to appreciate the fact that MIS studies and implements information systems. These systems include information technologies—but also, crucially, they include people. In a nutshell, this is why HCI is germane to MIS. The field of HCI has been the subject of study in computer science, the disci- pline centering on computer technologies; notably, the design of user interfaces has been studied there. Cognitive science has focused, among other issues, on studying how cognitive tasks are apportioned between people and machines. Other scholarly disciplines, including psychology and anthropology, have supplied methods of HCI research. An obviously vital aspect of study in the domain of MIS is how organizations use information systems to attain their objectives. In any direct sense, organizations do not develop or use systems: people do. It is humans who are system developers, and who find themselves well—or not so well—supported by the development environments in their varied tasks. It is people who imple- ment the system and bring it into good currency in organizations; it is also people who may play the role of counter-implementers, subverting the potential implementation. People are also the maintainers and evolvers of the system—and the malevolent hackers who may find social engi- neering easy in the given human-computer information system. It is the humans who may become the committed users of the information system—or its avoiders. System users are very often Alvin Toffler’s prosumers, as they both develop and use information systems. System usability is intri- cately interconnected with system functionality: it is for us to know the distinctions that make a difference. Systems that are not perceived by their intended users as supportive, empowering, indeed a joy to work with, are not likely to lead to the envisaged positive organizational outcomes. Users may appropriate the system and have it flourish, they may use it at a minimal level of com- pliance, or they may utterly reject it. Many system developers recognize that they have an ethical vii
- 13. mandate, beyond immediate organizational objectives, to develop systems that are built on human values. Such a system may tap into users’ deeply held beliefs, causing organizational benefits to follow. All of this tells us that it is crucial to recognize HCI issues during system development, implementation, and evolution. It follows that HCI is an organic component of the MIS field, as it addresses the complex set of issues centering on human interaction with information technologies in an organizational con- text, or for an organization’s benefit. The latter aspect has become a broadly researched area with the spread of e-commerce, as the discretionary use of a Web site is in many cases the only locus of interaction between an organization and its customers. For many customers, the Web site’s capa- bility to interact is the firm’s capability to transact. Thus, the increasing weight of HCI in MIS is no surprise. The editors of this work, Ping Zhang and Dennis Galletta, have done here a great service for our field. The present work, especially when taken together with their companion volume in the AMIS series, Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Applications, is a highly ambitious project that aims to establish HCI in its proper place as a vital and vibrant research stream in MIS. As you read the contributions assembled here, you will realize that HCI research has always been a part of MIS work. Yet the conceptualization, the articulation of the goals within the MIS, and the exemplification with leading work, all make these volumes a water- shed event in our field. The two volumes admirably fulfill the objectives of AMIS. The papers are authored by the top authorities in the field. A number of them provide a deep perspective on the development of HCI in MIS. Extensive literature citations will help orient a researcher. The volume editors offer a thorough research introduction. The HCI authority par excellence, Ben Shneiderman, thoughtfully and graciously introduces the work in his foreword, stressing its milestone importance in further progress. The series editor should know when to get out of the way. viii SERIES EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION
- 14. FOREWORD This remarkable volume needs trumpets to accompany the opening of its pages. But I think many readers will hear those trumpets in their mind, signaling the arrival of something new and impor- tant. It is with great pride and enthusiasm that I write this introduction to help tell the story of how human-computer interaction (HCI) has become a key component of the discipline of management information systems (MIS). The thoughtful introduction and eighteen compelling chapters in this volume are well worth reading carefully with time for reflection. They competently survey the topic, collectively pro- viding readers with an understandable portrait of this emerging interdisciplinary topic. In addition to the valuable contents of this volume and the follow-up second volume, Ping Zhang and Dennis Galletta’s leadership has created a lively community of contributors. This gath- ering of colorful personalities, leaders of the field, and wise commentators can lay claim to being an authoritative panel that is able to define this topic. The benefits of having this volume and com- munity are enormous as we each promote HCI in MIS with our close colleagues and superiors. This volume will smooth the way for new academic courses, curricula, and degree programs. It will enable industrial researchers to advance their agendas and organizational usability profes- sionals to accelerate their activities. The authors of the chapters appropriately use calm academic writing styles to thoughtfully con- vey their contents, so I will use my license as author of the foreword to be more passionate and visionary. Amidst the taxonomies and historical reviews, I see a shared commitment to making human values a key factor in designing future management information systems. Beyond the authorita- tive frameworks and extensive references, I recognize a devotion to societal concerns for how information and communications technologies are applied in the workplace. These authors want to be more than respected academics; they aspire to creating a better world. Their strongly user-centered vision of the world manifests itself in the use of terms and con- cepts that go beyond technology to focus on people. The gigabytes, megapixels, and megahertz are assumed, and now these authors discuss user acceptance, aesthetics, and affect. They talk about coordination, collaboration, and community. They also have a broad scope of analysis that encompasses cross-cultural design, universal usability, internationalization of products, and the globalization of work. While much of the writing has an optimistic spin, there is enough sober consideration of dystopian scenarios that anticipate dangers and present ethical dilemmas. The underlying message is that business decision makers, usability professionals, and engaged academics can shape what happens, at least in the world of management information systems. ix
- 15. The implicit challenge is to accept responsibility for the future that we create for employees, man- agers, customers, and citizens. This is a frightening but invigorating challenge. To succeed we’ll need to put aside our differences, and concentrate on our shared interests in a unified community that promotes HCI in MIS at universities, corporations, government agen- cies, and non-governmental organizations. Then we’ll be able to convince colleagues and superi- ors that HCI in MIS is worthy of increased support, even at the expense of other topics. Our unified community will gain respect when we reach out to elected officials, industry policy makers, and research agenda setters. Our clear vision will engage journalists who can tell the story to the general public. Change is often difficult, but with a shared commitment from a vigorous community, much good can be accomplished. We have an opportunity to shape the future of our discipline, shape the way in which technology is deployed, and constructively influence the lives of many people. THINKING ABOUT THEORIES In reading the chapters I was impressed with the devotion to theoretical frameworks. Zhang and Galletta refer to the many “strong theories” as they catalog the human issues (demographics, physical/motor, cognition, emotion, and motivation) and the context (global, social, organiza- tional, group). They lay out an overview of the discipline that integrates these human issues and the context with technology, task/job, and interaction design. Since I agree that devotion to theo- ries is important for disciplinary growth, it seems appropriate for a foreword to offer a set of categories for thinking about theories. I see at least five kinds of theories: Descriptive: describe objects and actions in a consistent and clear manner to enable coopera- tion. Many of the chapters lay out a descriptive framework, such as the five issues covered by Zhang and Galletta or the three kinds of fit described by Te’eni (Chapter 10): physical, cognitive, and affective. Explanatory: explain processes that have temporal sequencing or show influence or depend- ency of one factor on another. Many MIS theories are of this type, such as the coordination theo- ries (Chapter 7) that tie restaurant worker coordination to job satisfaction, or the security theories (Chapter 12) that tie higher employee income levels to better password management. Predictive: predict performance of individuals, organizations, or economies. These include the traditional human factors results such as Fitts’ Law that predicts pointing times based on distance and size of targets. MIS theories seem less concerned with such precise predictive theories, maybe because organizational performance is more vulnerable to high variability and many human values issues are so difficult to measure. Prescriptive: guidelines that prescribe behavior, recommendations based on best practices, and cautions based on failures. An example is the discussion of Value Sensitive Design (Chapter 16) that offers ten “practical suggestions” such as “identify direct and indirect stakeholders” and “identify potential value conflicts.” Generative: ways to see what is missing and what needs to be done. These are difficult to con- struct, but are potentially the most valuable for innovators. Some of the research agendas get close to being a generative theory. It seems to me that this is a valuable goal that could accelerate work on HCI in MIS, just as Mendeleyev’s periodical table of atomic elements led to discoveries of unknown elements. I’ve tried to lay out a generative theory based on activities and relationships (Leonardo’s Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies, MIT Press, 2002). The activities (collect, relate, create, donate) form the columns of a matrix and the rows are relation- ships (self, family and friends, colleagues and neighbors, citizens and markets). The activities are x FOREWORD
- 16. often combined to form compound activities such as shopping which happens by collecting infor- mation about the car you want to buy, forming a relationship between buyer and seller, and then creating the deal. The relationships are organized in order of increasing numbers of relationships, but decreasing shared knowledge, trust, and expectation of future encounters. These five kinds of theories may not be complete, and some theories fit into more than one cat- egory, but this classification has proven useful to me in thinking about theories. This list helps me understand proposed theories and see opportunities for new theories. I close with a restatement of my enthusiasm for this collection of papers and for the commu- nity that created them. I see a shared vision of a human-centered approach to HCI in MIS. I’m filled with excitement and enthusiasm and believe that readers will get the message about the importance of human values in HCI in MIS. I believe this volume will motivate colleagues and inspire students to carry out constructive user-centered research. Each of those projects will contribute to the larger goals. There is much work to be done … let’s get on with it! Ben Shneiderman University of Maryland FOREWORD xi
- 20. CHAPTER 1 FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS An Introduction PING ZHANG AND DENNIS GALLETTA Abstract: We begin this introduction to this first of two complementary volumes by providing a general context for both volumes and by giving a brief historical view of management informa- tion systems (MIS) scholars’ interest in human-computer interaction (HCI) research. We then integrate various HCI issues into an overarching framework that can encompass broad HCI con- cerns from multiple disciplines. After presenting the classification of HCI topics that guides our organization of the collection, we preview the papers collected in this volume, together with a variety of additional ideas, evidence, and insights. Topics in this volume include different disci- plines’ perspectives on HCI; our evolving understanding of who users are; theoretical under- standing of how to design systems to support humans; theories and models of the cognitive and behavioral aspects of information technology (IT) use; and fundamental understanding of the affective, aesthetic, value sensitive, and social aspects of HCI. Overall, this introduction brings together many literatures and highlights key points in the research’s evolution; it thus augments the collected papers to provide readers with a rich picture of HCI research’s foundations. Keywords: Human-Computer Interaction, MIS, Disciplinary Perspective, Computer Users, Design Theory, Fit, Belief and Behavior, Affect, Aesthetics, Socialization, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Computer-Human Interaction (CHI), Human Factors, Ergonomics, MIS History INTRODUCTION This book is the first of two complementary volumes that present scholarly works from a variety of lead- ing thinkers in HCI, including those who have ties to the field of management information systems (MIS). This volume (AMIS Vol. 5) covers concepts, theories, and models, and general issues of human-computer interaction studies relevant to MIS. Topics in this volume include interdisciplinary perspectives on HCI; our evolving understanding of who users are; theoretical understanding of how to design systems to support humans; theories and models of the cognitive and behavioral aspects of infor- mation technology (IT) use; and fundamental understanding of the affective, aesthetic, value sensitive, and social aspects of HCI. The second volume (AMIS Vol. 6) covers applications, special case studies, and HCI studies in specific contexts. Topics in the second volume include HCI studies in the areas of electronic commerce and the Web; HCI studies for collaboration support; issues relating to culture and globalization; specific HCI issues in IT learning and training; theoretical understandings of the system 1
- 21. development processes; HCI issues in health care and health informatics; and, finally, methodological concerns in HCI research. Each volume concludes with thoughtful reflections by well-known authors. In this volume, Fred Davis discusses the connection between the technology acceptance model (TAM) and HCI, and Jonathan Grudin reflects on the historical development of three closely related disciplines. In the second volume, an early, influential, and visible debate on soft versus hard science in HCI stud- ies is revisited and updated from the perspective of one of the original debaters, John Carroll. We begin this introduction by providing a general context for both volumes, along with a brief historical view of MIS scholars’ interest in HCI research. Then we integrate various HCI issues into an overarching framework introduced by Zhang and Li (2005) that can encompass broad HCI concerns from multiple disciplines. We present the classification of HCI topics that guides the organization of this volume; we then preview the papers collected in this volume. We integrate this preview with a variety of additional ideas, evidence, and insights. Overall, we intend this intro- duction to augment the collected papers in this volume, thus providing readers with a rich picture of the foundations of HCI research. A HISTORICAL VIEW OF HCI IN MIS RESEARCH The MIS community includes scholars who focus on the development, use, and impact of infor- mation technology and systems in broadly defined social and organizational settings. MIS has seen a steady shift from what could have been labeled techno-centrism to a broader and more balanced focus on technological, organizational, managerial, and societal problems (Baskerville and Myers, 2002). MIS-oriented HCI issues have been addressed since the earliest studies in the MIS disci- pline. For example, users’attitudes, perceptions, acceptance, and use of IT have been long-standing themes of MIS research since the early days of computing (Lucas, 1975; Swanson, 1974), as have studies on programmer cognition and end user involvement in systems development. MIS scholars have identified information systems failures as the potential result of a lack of emphasis on the human/social aspects of system use (Bostrom and Heinen, 1977), have pointed out the need to attend to user behavior in information technology research (Gerlach and Kuo, 1991), and have attempted to tie human factors, usability, and HCI to the systems development life cycle (Hefley et al., 1995; Mantei and Teorey, 1989; Zhang et al., 2005). Also extensively studied are IS devel- opment theories and methodologies (Baskerville and Pries-Heje, 2004; Hirschheim and Klein, 1989), collaborative work and computer-mediated communication (Poole et al., 1991; Reinig et al., 1996; Yoo and Alavi, 2001; Zigurs et al., 1999), representations of information for supporting managerial tasks (Jarvenpaa, 1989; Vessey, 1994; Zhang, 1998), and computer training (Bostrom, 1990; Sein and Bostrom, 1989; Webster and Martocchio, 1995). Culnan (1986) identified nine factors or subfields in early MIS publications (1972–82). Of these nine, three relate to issues in humans interacting with computers. In a second study of a later period of MIS publications (1980–85), Culnan (1987) found the field to be composed of five areas of study, of which the second, individual (micro) approach to MIS design and use is closely related to human-computer interaction. Vessey and colleagues also considered HCI as a research area when studying the diversity of the MIS discipline, although they considered HCI to be more at the user interface level, and thus placed it within the systems/software concepts category (Vessey et al., 2002). After surveying fifty years of MIS publications in the Management Science journal, Banker and Kauffman identified HCI as one of five main research streams in MIS and predicted that interest in HCI research will resurge (Banker and Kauffman, 2004). These longtime interests in the MIS field have touched upon the fundamental issues of human interaction with technologies, or, even more generally, the broad area of human factors. From the 2 ZHANG AND GALLETTA
- 22. MIS perspective, HCI studies examine how humans interact with information, technologies, and tasks, especially in business, managerial, organizational, and cultural contexts (Zhang et al., 2002). This differs notably from HCI studies in disciplines such as computer science, psychology, and ergonomics. MIS researchers emphasize managerial and organizational contexts by analyzing tasks and outcomes at a level relevant to organizational effectiveness. The features that distinguish MIS from other “homes” of HCI are its business application and management orientation (Zhang et al., 2004). As MIS scholars’ interest in HCI has increased in recent years, HCI has gained great importance in the MIS discipline. There is evidence to support these assertions. For example, a large number of MIS scholars report their interest in researching HCI-related issues and in teaching HCI-related topics (Zhang et al., 2002). HCI courses are offered in many MIS programs (Carey et al., 2004; Chan et al., 2003; Kutzschan and Webster, 2005). HCI is considered an important topic in the most recent model curriculum for masters in information systems majors (Gorgone et al., 2005). Both the total number and the percentage of HCI studies published in primary MIS journals have increased over the recent years (Zhang and Li, 2005). Major MIS conferences—such as the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), the Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), the Americas Conferences on Information Systems (AMCIS), the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), and the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)—have been publishing HCI studies. Most of them have recently included specific HCI tracks (ICIS started in 2004, AMCIS in 2002, and PACIS in 2005; ECIS in 2006, and HICSS in 2007). A workshop devoted to HCI research in the MIS discipline, the pre-ICIS Annual Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, started in 2002. Several special issues on HCI research in MIS have appeared or are appearing in top MIS and HCI journals since 2003. Finally, an official organ- ization of HCI in MIS, the AIS Special Interest Group on HCI (SIGHCI), was established in 2001 (Zhang, 2004). BOUNDING HCI A scientific field or discipline, such as MIS or physics, must have a boundary (which may or may not be well defined) that outlines matters of intrinsic interest to the field of inquiry. Over many years, the MIS discipline has gone through the process of clarifying its boundary. The same process has been occurring in the HCI sub-discipline (Zhang and Li, 2005). Based on the defini- tion of HCI research in MIS given above (Zhang et al., 2002), Figure 1.1 represents a broad view of important HCI components that are pertinent to human interaction with technologies. Five components are identified: human and technology as the basic components, interaction as the core of interest, and task and context as the components making HCI issues meaningful. Several topics are listed inside each component to illustrate the components and the relationships among them. The two basic components encompass human and technology. There can be many different ways of understanding humans in general and their specific characteristics pertinent to their inter- action with IT. Figure 1.1 includes four categories: (1) demographics; (2) physical or motor skills; (3) cognitive issues; and (4) affective and motivational aspects. Personalities or traits can be examined within both the cognitive and affective categories. Many issues in the Human compo- nent fall into the ergonomics and psychology disciplines. HCI focuses, though, on the interplay between the human component and other components. Technology can be broadly defined to include hardware, software, applications, data, information, knowledge, services, and procedures. Figure 1.1 indicates one way of examining technological FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MIS 3
- 23. issues when studying HCI. Many of these technological issues have interested researchers in the HCI field for a long time (Shneiderman, 1987; Shneiderman and Plaisant, 2005). The figure was developed from the perspective of technology types often found in technical fields such as com- puter science or studies associated with the computer-human interaction (CHI) community. The Interaction between Human and Technology represents the “I” in HCI. It is the core or the center of all the action in HCI studies. Interaction issues have been studied from two aspects of the IT artifact life cycle: during the IT development stage (before release), and during its use and impact stage (after release). Traditionally, HCI studies, especially research captured by ACM SIGCHI conferences and journals, were concerned with designing and implementing interactive systems for specified users, including usability issues. The primary focus has been the issues prior to the technology’s release and actual use. Ideally, concerns and understanding from both points of view—human and technological—should influence design and usability issues. The “Use/Impact” box on the right side inside the Interaction in Figure 1.1 is concerned with actual IT use in real contexts and its impact on users, organizations, and societies. Design studies can be and should be informed by what we learn from the use of the same or similar technologies. Thus, use/impact studies have implications for future designs. Historically, use/impact studies have been the focal concern of MIS, along with human factors and ergonomics, organizational psychol- ogy, social psychology, and other social science disciplines. In the MIS discipline, studies of indi- vidual reactions to technology (e.g., Compeau et al., 1999), IS evaluation from both individual and 4 ZHANG AND GALLETTA Cognition Cognitive style Perception Attention Memory Knowledge Learning Error Distributed cognition Emotion and Motivation Affectivity Affective state Mood/feeling Emotion Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Physical/Motor Motor control Comfort Demographics Gender, age, culture Computer experience Education Human Basic Technology Input/output devices Communication technologies End-user computing Organizational computing Advanced Technology Information visualization Ubiquitous computing Affective computing Communityware Reality-based interfaces Personal technologies Technology Global Context National culture Norms Universal accessibility Social Context Privacy Trust Ethics Norms Organizational Context Org. goals Org. culture & norms Policy & procedures Management support Context Group Context Group goals Group culture & norms Task/Job Task goals Task characteristics Task complexity Source: Adapted and expanded from Zhang and Li (2005). Design Use Impact Interaction Figure 1.1 An Overview of Broad HCI Issues
- 24. organizational levels (e.g., Goodhue, 1997; Goodhue, 1998; Goodhue, 1995; Goodhue and Thompson, 1995), and user technology acceptance (e.g., Davis, 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003) all fall into this area. Humans use technologies not for the sake of those technologies, but to support tasks that are relevant or meaningful to their jobs or personal goals. In addition, people carry out tasks in settings or contexts that impose constraints on doing and completing the tasks. Four contexts are identified: group, organizational, social, and global. The Task and Context boxes add dynamic and essential meanings to the interaction experience. In this sense, studies of human-computer interaction are moderated by tasks and contexts. It is these broader task and context considera- tions that separate the primary foci of HCI studies in MIS from HCI studies in other disciplines. Later, we will discuss more disciplinary differences. Based on a literature assessment of HCI studies in seven prime MIS journals between 1990 and 2002, Zhang and Li (2005) further provided a classification of the HCI subject topics. Table 1.1 adapts this classification, adding descriptions and examples. The organization of the collected papers for this volume is guided by the classification in Table 1.1. Although the papers in this volume do not cover all the topics listed in Table 1.1, due to lim- ited space and the unavailability of prospective researchers, the scholars who contribute to this col- lection do provide a rich understanding of state-of-the-art HCI issues. Next, we discuss the topical themes covered in this volume and preview the collected papers within the broad HCI framework provided in Figure 1.1. Readers interested in discussions of other topics can read (Zhang and Li 2005) to find out what is demonstrated by the MIS literature on those topics. FOUNDATIONS OF HCI RESEARCH Disciplinary Perspectives and the Users HCI started as an interdisciplinary field, has stayed interdisciplinary, and can be predicted to con- tinue to be interdisciplinary. This is because no single discipline can completely cover the com- plex, extensive issues involved; as Dillon states: “There is no one field that can cover all the issues worthy of study” (in this volume). Given their relevance to many aspects of our lives and societies, HCI issues have attracted researchers, educators, and practitioners from many different fields. Interdisciplinary tension, as Carroll calls it, “has always been a resource to HCI, and an important factor to its success” (in the second volume). The key to success is to keep an open- minded attitude and to facilitate dialogues among various related disciplines, thus making the best of each discipline’s unique perspectives and strengths. With this in mind, we collected papers from well-known authors that reflect several HCI-related disciplines and their relationships with each other. The contributors reveal different disciplinary views across the entirety of the two vol- umes. In this section, we highlight two specific papers on this subject. MIS as a discipline has a lengthy and strong interest in information, and in the role informa- tion plays in business decision making and organizational effectiveness. For example, Banville and Landry (1989) concluded that the original perspective of MIS centered on either management, information, systems, or on a combination of these. A number of disciplines share this strong inter- est in information; these include MIS, HCI, and information science. As such, information can be used as a bridge among these related disciplines. An emphasis on information should also allow MIS and other disciplines to examine shared concerns, common approaches, and potential for collaboration. Dillon provides just this perspective. He examines how different disciplines treat FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MIS 5
- 25. information in order to identify the similarities and differences between MIS and HCI. From an informational basis, “MIS can be considered to be primarily concerned with identifying, abstracting, and supporting the data flows that exist in organizations, and developing or supporting the tech- nological (broadly conceived) means of exploiting the potential to serve organizational ends. 6 ZHANG AND GALLETTA Table 1.1 HCI Topic Classification ID Category Description and Examples A IT development Concerned with issues that occur during IT development and/or implementation that are relevant to the relationship between human and technology. Focus on the process where IT is developed or implemented. The artifact is being worked on before actual use A1 Development methods Structured approaches, object-oriented approaches, CASE and tools tools, social-cognitive approaches for developing IT that consider roles of users and IT personnel A2 User-analyst interaction User involvement in analysis, user participation, user-analyst differences, user-analyst interaction A3 Software/hardware Programmer/analyst cognition studies, design and development development of specific or general applications or devices that consider some human aspects A4 Software/hardware System effectiveness, efficiency, quality, reliability, flexibility, evaluation and information quality evaluations that consider people as part of the mix A5 User interface Interface metaphors, information presentations, multimedia design and development A6 User interface Instrumental usability (e.g., ease of use, low error rate, ease of evaluation learning, retention rate, satisfaction), accessibility, information presentation evaluation A7 User training User training issues or studies during IT development (prior to product release or use) B IT use and impact Concerned with issues that occur when humans use and/or evaluate IT; issues related to the reciprocal influences between IT and humans. The artifact is released and used in a real context B1 Cognitive belief and Self-efficacy, perception, eBelief, incentives, expectation, behavior intention, behavior, acceptance, adoption, resistance, use B2 Attitude Attitude, satisfaction, preference B3 Learning Learning models, learning processes, training in general (different from user training as part of system development) B4 Emotion Emotion, affect, hedonic quality, flow, enjoyment, humor, intrinsic motivation B5 Performance Performance, productivity, effectiveness, efficiency B6 Trust Trust, risk, loyalty, security, privacy B7 Ethics Ethical belief, ethical behavior, ethics B8 Interpersonal Conflict, interdependence, agreement/disagreement, relationship interference, tension, leadership, influence B9 User support Issues related to information center, end-user computing support, general user support Source: Adapted from Zhang and Li (2005).
- 26. Similarly, HCI seeks to maximize the use of information through the design of humanly accept- able representational and manipulatory tools.” Based on such analyses, Dillon outlines a number of research areas that can bridge the disciplines of MIS and HCI. MIS scholars have built their HCI research on a large number of diverse disciplines, including information systems, business and management, psychology, philosophy, and communications, among others (Zhang and Li, 2005). Accordingly, HCI issues have been examined from the differ- ent analytical perspectives inherited from these disciplines. Kutzschan and Webster argue that MIS researchers, with their big-picture perspective, strong theories, and rigorous methodologies, are distinctively positioned to address HCI issues. Due to the increased sensitivity of HCI issues to businesses and marketplaces, MIS now benefits from a great opportunity to study HCI. Therefore, MIS is the natural home of HCI research. The human is an important component in HCI studies, regardless of the researcher’s discipli- nary perspective. Because studies of humans as users rely heavily on ideas about human psychol- ogy, both HCI and MIS have been able to connect directly with a basic science; this connection, in turn, gives its research depth and credibility. Historically, MIS research has studied humans at both stages of the IT life cycle: the IT development stage and the IT use and impact stage (Zhang and Li, 2005). MIS studies that have direct impact on IT development and use also examine humans’ different roles—as developers, analysts, and designers of IT; as users or end users of IT; and as managers and stakeholders.1 Tables 1.2 and 1.3 list some of the MIS research topics that explicitly consider humans as individuals or groups during the IT life cycle. They are meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. Users or end users have been studied from at least the following perspectives in the MIS discipline: • Users with individual differences such as general traits, IT-specific traits, cognitive styles, and personalities (e.g., Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Benbasat and Taylor, 1978; Huber, 1983; Webster and Martocchio, 1992). Banker and Kauffman (2004) provided a detailed summary of MIS studies in this area. • Users as social actors in the design, development, and use of information and communica- tion technologies (ICT) (Lamb and Kling, 2003). Lamb and Kling argued that most people who use ICT applications use multiple applications, in various roles, and as part of their efforts to produce goods and services while interacting with a variety of other people, often in multiple social contexts. Only if we take such a view of users can we better understand how organizational contexts shape ICT-related practices, and what complex and multiple roles people fulfill while adopting, adapting, and using ICT. • Users as economic agents whose preferences, behaviors, personalities, and ultimately eco- nomic welfare are intricately linked to the design of information systems (Bapna et al., 2004). It is noteworthy that supporting individuals or groups is not the only concern of HCI research in MIS. As noted by many, the mobile and pervasive nature of modern computer use by various peo- ple and organizations call for new challenges and opportunities (Lyytinen et al., 2004). Overall, the views of users have been broadened significantly. In this volume, DeSanctis examined how the concept of user has evolved from an individual user to a group of people, then to an entire firm or organization, and finally to a diffuse community with dynamic membership and purpose. This inevitable evolution challenges the design and research issues MIS scholars face, but also provides opportunities to advance their understanding of broad HCI issues. FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MIS 7
- 27. IT Development: Theories of Individual and Group Work In the context of promoting user-centered design of collaborative technology to support group work, Olson and Olson (1991) identified the different design approaches that existed at the time: • Technology-driven design: a technology was proposed before anyone fully understood the problem or the best way to solve it; • Rational design: design by prescription, in that a system is designed to change the way people behave; • Intuitive design: a designer builds something because it seems intuitive that it will work well; • Analogical design: systems are built to resemble people’s present use of similar objects; and • Evolutionary design: systems are built to expand the capabilities of current systems already in use. 8 ZHANG AND GALLETTA Table 1.2 Some MIS Studies on Individuals During the IT Life Cycle IT Development IT Use and Impact Developers, • Programmer/analyst cognition • Power relations between users and IS Designers, Analysts (Kim et al., 2000; Zmud et al., professionals (Markus and 1993) Bjørn-Andersen, 1987) • Novice and expert system • Analysts’ view of IS failure (Lyytinen, analysts (Pitts and Browne, 1988) 2004; Schenk et al., 1998) • Developers’ intention of using methodologies (Hardgrave et al., 2003) Users, End Users • User participation and user • Cognitive styles and individual involvement (e.g., Barki and differences (Benbasat and Taylor, 1978; Hartwick, 1994; 1989; Harrison and Rainer, 1992; Huber, 1983; Saleem, 1996) Webster and Martocchio, 1992) • Customer-developer links in • Individual reactions to IT (Compeau system development, and Joint et al., 1999) Application Design and Participa- • IT acceptance (Davis, 1989) tory Design (Carmel et al., 1993; • Individual IT performance and Keil and Carmel, 1995) productivity (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995) • User-developed applications • User training and computer self-efficacy (Rivard and Huff, 1984) (Compeau and Higgins, 1995) Managers, • Building systems people want • Challenges to management on a Stockholders to use (Markus and Keil, 1994) personal level (Argyris, 1971) • Users’ resistance (e.g., Dickson and Simmons, 1970) • Raising intrinsic motivation (Malhotra and Galletta, 2005) • Duality of technology (Orlikowski, 1992)1 1 In this paper, Orlikowski considered all types of human agents: technology designers, users, and decision makers. She also considered both stages of the IT life cycle, looking at technology as a product of human action and technology as a medium of human action, with institutional consequences. Therefore, this study should not just fit this cell but all six cells.
- 28. Olson and Olson note that in a user-centered design strategy, a design begins with detailed con- siderations of users’ tasks and capabilities: Who are the potential users? How varied are they? What is their current work like? Which aspects of their work are difficult? What are their needs? There are three key aspects to this design strategy: involving users, iterative design, and the role of theory about users (Olson and Olson, 1991). As we can see, several of these approaches still exist today; they can be applied to designing individual-based technologies as well as to collaborative work. Design is more than art. Theoretically informed design goes a long way to advance research and practice. As Baecker and colleagues pointed out, “Many empirical studies of interactive computer use have no theoretical orientation. Data is collected, but no underlying model or theory of the process exists to be con- firmed or refuted. Such a theory would be very helpful because with many design decisions there are too many alternative proposals to test by trail and error. A strong theory or performance model could reduce the set of plausible alternatives to a manageable number of testing” (Baecker et al., 1995, p. 573). In the MIS literature, much theoretical work guides designers on developing infor- mation systems that support individuals and groups. In this section, we introduce three streams of such work to demonstrate the importance of such design theories. Two papers cover research on designing systems for individual support. Given a long history of developing decision support systems (DSS) to help decision makers make a specific decision or FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MIS 9 Table 1.3 MIS Studies on Groups During the IT Life Cycle IT Development IT Use and Impact Developers, • User-centered design of Designers, Analysts collaborative technology (Olson and Olson, 1991) • Global software team coordination (Espinosa and Carmel, 2005) Users, End Users • The user interface design • Group performance and productivity (Dennis issues for GDSS (Gray and and Garfield, 2003; Dennis et al., 2001) Olfman, 1989) • Collaborative telelearning (Alavi et al., 1995) • Cognitive feedback (Sengupta and Te’eni, 1993) • Behavior in group process (Massey and Clapper, 1995; Zigurs et al., 1988) • The effect of group memory on individual creativity (Satzinger et al., 1999) • On the development of shared mental models (Swaab et al., 2002) • Satisfaction with teamwork (Reinig, 2003) Managers, • Developing Systems for • Organizational Learning (Senge, 1990) Stockholders Management of Organiza- tional Knowledge (Markus et al., 2002) • GDSS design strategy (Huber, 1984)1 1 In this paper, Huber actually covered both the development/design and use/implementation stages of the GDSS life cycle.
- 29. choose a specific course of action, the issue of decision makers’ confidence in decision quality becomes an important one. Kasper and Andoh-Baidoo present an extension of the DSS design theory for user calibration, which is defined as the correspondence between one’s prediction of the quality of a decision and the actual quality of the decision. In a related paper, Silver broadens the original work published a decade ago on how a DSS enlightens or sways its users as they choose among and use the system’s functional capabilities. The broadened theoretical work can be used to study not only DSS but a variety of other interactive information systems. In a group setting, coordination becomes an important activity to ensure group success. Coordination activities relate to organizing and coordinating group activities, both during the course and over the course of a project. They include such activities as goal stating, agenda setting, his- tory keeping, floor control, activity tracking, and project management (Olson and Olson, 1991). Coordination theory (Malone and Crowston, 1994) provides a detailed theoretical understanding of the dependencies between the tasks the different group members are carrying out and how the group coordinates its work. Built on research in several different disciplines, such as economics, organizational theory, and computer science, coordination theory has influenced many studies since its initial publication in 1994. In this volume, Crowston and his colleagues provide a ten-year ret- rospective on the development, use, and impact of coordination theory. IT Development: Theories of Fit The theoretical works in this section continue to shed light on developing effective information systems that can benefit individuals, groups, and organizations. The section comprises three papers on fit that, taken together, cover a broad range of aspects important in designing informa- tion systems. The first two papers built and expanded on two important MIS models by their original cre- ators: cognitive fit by Iris Vessey and task-technology fit by Dale Goodhue. Cognitive fit (CF) the- ory (Vessey, 1991; Vessey and Galletta, 1991) was initially introduced to explain the inconsistent results in the area of information presentations, where graphs and tables are used to support infor- mation acquisition and information evaluation tasks. In this volume, Vessey surveys the broad applications of CF, discusses the fundamental theoretical framework of CF theory, and points out future directions (Vessey, 2005). Task-technology fit (TTF) (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995) studies the causal chain connect- ing information technology with its performance impact. The key idea of TTF is that a technol- ogy can have a positive performance impact only if it fits the task that is being supported. In this regard, TTF may sound very similar to cognitive fit theory. Yet, the granularity of analysis and the scope of considerations taken by these two models are different: Cognitive fit focuses more on the cognitive processes during individual problem solving, while TTF emphasizes the relationships among the various factors that influence the fit of the technology under analysis. TTF also ana- lyzes the impact of the fit on other factors, such as system utilization, user attitude, and user performance—where users can be both individuals and groups (Zigurs and Buckland, 1998). TTF’s focus moves beyond technology acceptance or utilization to analyze how technology impacts actual task performance. Despite the obvious importance of this construct, Goodhue argues that it is often neglected in major MIS models on information systems and performance. An organizational information system does more than simply supporting productivity. Expand- ing the cognitive-affective model of organizational communication with IT support (Te’eni, 2001), and building on both cognitive fit and task-technology fit, Dov Te’eni presents a well-rounded and much broader concept of fit that has to do with physical, cognitive, and affective fit between human 10 ZHANG AND GALLETTA
- 30. and computer. All three authors conclude that there is much to do to advance studies on fit in HCI and MIS disciplines. This further confirms the call for research in this area (Zhang et al., 2002). IT Use and Impact: Beliefs and Behavior The ultimate goal of developing IT is to support and positively impact individuals, groups and organizations. Human interaction with technology is goal-oriented behavior that constitutes two main questions: what causes users to use technology, and why the use of technology is different (Zhang et al., 2005). IS researchers have built heavily on psychological research into motivations and goal-oriented behaviors to understand how people behave around computers. In particular, IS researchers are interested in understanding how and why a computer-related behavior develops and how it influences future behavior. Influenced heavily by the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), a significant amount of IS research has been conducted in identifying relevant cognitive beliefs that lead to certain behavior. One important belief that is related to computer use is computer self-efficacy (CSE) (Compeau and Higgins, 1995). CSE is defined as “an individual judgment of one’s capability to use a computer” (Compeau and Higgins, 1995, p. 192). CSE has been found to influence user acceptance of tech- nology and user learning about technology. Through a thorough review of MIS literature on CSE, Compeau and colleagues find that the formation of CSE, along with its careful conceptualization and measurement, is much less studied. Therefore, their paper focuses on these issues. Specifically, they present the state of the research on CSE, including its conceptualization, influence, and formation. Then they introduce a number of ongoing research programs in addressing the gaps and opportuni- ties in this area. Finally, they conclude with an agenda for future research on CSE. Among the many studies of behaviors related to information technology, behavioral informa- tion security has become an important area of research in recent years. Stanton and colleagues define behavioral information security as the human actions that influence the availability, confi- dentiality, and integrity of information systems. They note that despite the multibillion dollars spent on information security by commercial, nonprofit, and governmental organizations around the world, the success of security appears to depend upon the behavior of the individuals involved. Appropriate and constructive behavior by end users, system administrators, and others can enhance the effectiveness of information security while inappropriate and destructive behaviors can inhibit its effectiveness. Stanton and colleagues use social, organizational, and behavioral the- ories and approaches, and conduct a series of empirical investigations in developing a taxonomy of security behaviors and identifying the motivational predictors of such behaviors. Information security is also heavily engineering and technology oriented, because much of the information security spending is in these areas. Just how are the human and technological aspects of security issues different and related? Dhillon and May use a semiotic framework to illustrate the holistic nature of information security issues. Such a semiotic framework has six layers: phys- ical, empiric, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and social. The first three are technically oriented, and the last three are human issues. Besides identifying the role of each layer, it is important to understand the impact each layer has on other layers. Based on existing studies on using semiotic research in IS, Dhillon and May argue that when HCI or IS research considers only some layers when studying and designing information security, the results can be dysfunctional and dissatis- factory. The semiotic framework proves to be a useful tool, given that it can be used to analyze existing security principles. For example, Stanton and colleagues’ paper on behavioral informa- tion security places more emphasis on the pragmatic and social layers of the semiotic framework. FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MIS 11
- 31. IT Use and Impact: Affect, Aesthetics, Value, and Socialization Other researchers investigate why people use technology and examine aspects of technology use that lie beyond cognitive reasoning. These include affect and emotion, aesthetics, human values, and social influence, which are covered by four papers in this volume. Affect (mood, emotion, feeling) has been found to influence reflex, perception, cognition, and behavior (Norman, 2002; Russell, 2003; Zhang and Li, 2005) and has been studied in psychology, marketing, organizational behavior, and other disciplines. Although it has received less attention than cognitive approaches, affect has been covered in the IS literature for a long time and to quite some extent. Sun and Zhang examine the theoretical advancement of affect studies in several IS reference disciplines and propose an abstract model of an individual interacting with objects; they then develop an IT-specific model by applying the abstract model to integrate and interpret affect studies in the MIS discipline. A specific aspect of affect is the pleasantness or unpleasantness that may be generated by visual attractiveness, or aesthetics, as Tractinsky puts it. Tractinsky makes a strong argument that aesthetics has become a major differentiating factor between IT products in that many products now provide the same functionality and meet the same needs; this has happened because aesthet- ics satisfies basic human needs and because human needs are increasingly supplied by IT. Perceived aesthetics (Tractinsky et al., 2000), perceived visual attractiveness (van der Heijden, 2003), and first impressions (Schenkman and Jonsson, 2000) have all been found to influence people’s judgment of IT, as they regard what is beautiful is usable (Tractinsky et al., 2000). As Norman stated, beautiful things work better (Norman, 2004). Values refer to what people consider important in life; they include trust, privacy, human wel- fare, freedom from bias, and autonomy, to name a few. According to Friedman and colleagues, an important and long-standing interest in designing information and computational systems should be to support enduring human values. Value sensitive design is a theoretically grounded approach to the design of IT that accounts for human values in a principled and comprehensive manner throughout the design process. Friedman and colleagues give detailed descriptions of the approach and some examples in their paper. Forever social, we humans live in social environments and behave socially. Consequently, we treat everything in our environment, including other humans and even artifacts, socially. The media equation theory (Reeves and Nass, 1996) predicts and explains why people respond uncon- sciously and automatically to communication media (or artifacts in general) as if they were human. Computers are continuously regarded as social actors. How can HCI design help? In this volume, Nass and colleagues present abundant investigations to explore social consistency issues that are at the center of the more socially demanding interfaces of today’s technology. The stud- ied social responses to computers include personality, gender, emotion, and the use of “I.” Reflections To conclude the first volume, we include two reflective pieces. In the first, Fred Davis, the creator of the technology acceptance model (TAM), deals with the relationship between TAM and HCI. In the second, Jonathan Grudin offers a historical cross-examination of three related disciplines. Long established as a research topic, user acceptance of technology is considered “one of the most mature research areas in the contemporary IS literature” (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Organi- zations that spend millions of dollars on information technologies (IT) are primarily concerned with how their investments will influence organizational and individual performance (Torkzadeh 12 ZHANG AND GALLETTA
- 32. and Doll, 1999). However, the expected productivity gains and organizational benefits delivered by IT cannot be realized unless IT is actually accepted and used (Hackbarth et al., 2003). Due to its importance, several theoretical models have been developed in this research. For example, Venkatesh and colleagues (Venkatesh et al., 2003) reviewed eight models that have gained MIS scholars’ attention in recent decades. Among the many efforts and models, the technology accept- ance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989) is considered the most studied model and has generated much research interest and effort in the MIS community. Since the publication of TAM in late 1980s (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989), abundant studies have been done to test the model (Adams et al., 1992; Davis, 1989; Davis, 1993; Davis et al., 1989), extend it (Igbaria et al., 1997; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh and Davis, 1996), or compare it with other models (Davis et al., 1989; Dishaw and Strong, 1999; Mathieson, 1991; Taylor and Todd, 1995; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). In this volume, Fred Davis discusses how early HCI research inspired him during his dissertation work on TAM. He also discusses the evolution and current status of TAM research. A historical view can be informative, enlightening, and intriguing. Because historical interpreta- tions depend on the views taken by a researcher, they may yield unique results. Taking a historical perspective, Grudin compares three closely related disciplines that all have an intrinsic interest in HCI issues: human factors and ergonomics, computer-human interaction (CHI), and management infor- mation systems (MIS). He examines a rich set of historical events for each discipline. One frustra- tion Grudin mentions is the terminologies used by MIS and CHI. On the surface, the different uses of the same terms do seem overwhelmingly confusing, as noted by Grudin repeatedly (Grudin, 1993). Yet, if we examine these differences more deeply, we can actually identify some fundamen- tal differences among the different disciplines, such as the level of analysis in MIS and CHI: MIS emphasizes the macro level of IT development and use that is relevant and meaningful at the orga- nizational level (Zhang et al., 2002); CHI, on the other hand, emphasizes the micro level of humans directly interacting with technology, with limited consideration of organizational meaningfulness. For example, Grudin mentions that “task analysis” has different meanings in MIS and in CHI: the word “task” in CHI would mean “move text” or “select-copy-paste,” while the word “task” in MIS would usually refer to an organizational task. We think this difference arises because of the differ- ent levels of analysis these two disciplines take. “Moving text” or “selecting an object in GUI” is less meaningful in an organizational context than “finding a new location for the new branch of the business.” To support the latter, IS designers need to go through the user’s cognitive processes— i.e., they must conduct a cognitive task analysis by understanding how an organizational-level task can be supported by “tool-level” tasks that are, in turn, more directly supported by a computer sys- tem (such as a Decision Support System). Organizational-level tasks contextualize the interaction the user has with the computer when he or she is carrying out tool-level tasks. Therefore, although both studies in CHI and MIS may seem to be conducted at the level of the individual user, the tasks involved take place at different levels of abstraction (Zhang et al., 2005). SUMMARY HCI research in the MIS discipline has a long and an extensive history. Many different disciplines contribute to the development and enrichment of HCI research within the MIS discipline. There are also shared concerns and commonalities among MIS and other disciplines that have an interest in humans interacting with technologies. By the time a reader reads all the papers in this volume, it may become evident that MIS scholars emphasize organizational and business tasks and concerns, consider broad organizational and social contexts in their studies, and draw implications that are FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MIS 13
- 33. meaningful to organizations and management. The collected papers may also demonstrate the rich- ness of HCI research topics in the MIS discipline. This can be further complemented by the col- lection on specific research topics in the second volume, HCI and MIS: Applications. It may also become evident that the interest in HCI research in MIS will continue, just as Banker and Kauffman (2004) predicted. This has a lot to do with the recent advancement of technologies and relatively easy development of many sophisticated applications. More people are creating computer applications that affect many more people than ever before. User interfaces and human factors become the bottlenecks of acceptance and deployment of many promising technologies. In addi- tion, being more productive and efficient are but two of several goals of technology users (Reinig et al., 1996; Te’eni, 2001; Zhang et al., 2002). We want to enhance not only our work, but also our life outside work, our connection with friends and families, and our capability to be more creative (Shneiderman, 2002). Because users are diverse and use technology in many different ways, the need for universally accessible IT (Shneiderman, 2000) affects more than just challenged people. Overall, human-centeredness has become more critical than ever before (Zhang et al., 2005). We hope HCI research in MIS will continue to grow. Together with other aspects of MIS research and with other disciplines related to HCI, we hope to make human experiences with technologies more pleasant, interesting, rewarding, and fulfilling, thus generating more business value for organiza- tions and more social value for societies (Zhang and Li, 2005). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Drs. Alan Dennis and Joe Valacich for providing insight and pointers on some materi- als. Drs. Izak Benbasat, Gerry DeSanctis, Andrew Dillon, Jonathan Grudin, Ben Shneiderman, and Vladimir Zwass commented on early drafts, which enhanced the final paper considerably. We are responsible for any omissions, errors, or biases in this paper. NOTE 1. In the MIS discipline, there are many studies on the management of IT where managers, CIOs, stake- holders, and other people play important roles that can be in both IT development and IT use stages in an organizational context. Their interaction with IT is most often at a higher level rather than at a direct hands- on level, so there are few sample studies of behavioral, cognitive, or affective impacts. Most often, managers deal with user resistance, raise intrinsic motivation of users, or “reengineer” a task to raise user productivity with IT support. REFERENCES Adams, D.A.; Nelson, R.R.; and Todd, P.A. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information tech- nology: a replication. MIS Quarterly, 16, 2 (1992), 227–247. Agarwal, R., and Prasad, J. A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9, 2 (1998), 204–215. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 2 (1991), 179–211. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Alavi, M.; Wheeler, B.C.; and Valacich, J. Using IT to reengineer business education: an exploratory inves- tigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Quarterly, 19, 3 (1995), 293–312. Argyris, C. Management information systems: the challenge to rationality and emotionality. Management Science, 17, 6 (1971), B275–B292. 14 ZHANG AND GALLETTA
- 34. Baecker, R.; Grudin, J.; Buxton, W.; and Greenberg, S. Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1995. Banker, R.D., and Kauffman, R.J. The evolution of research on information systems: a fiftieth-year survey of the literature in management science. Management Science, 50, 3 (2004), 281–298. Banville, C., and Landry, M. Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32, 1 (1989), 48–60. Bapna, R.; Goes, P.; and Gupta, A. User heterogeneity and its impact on electronic auction market design: an empirical exploration. MIS Quarterly, 28, 1 (2004), 21–43. Barki, H., and Hartwick, J. Measuring user participation, use involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quarterly, 18, 1 (1994), 59–82. Barki, H., and Hartwick, J. Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13, 1 (1989), 53–63. Baskerville, R., and Pries-Heje, J. Short cycle time systems development. Information Systems Journal, 14 (2004), 237–264. Baskerville, R.L., and Myers, M.D. Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26, 1 (2002), 1–14. Benbasat, I., and Taylor, R.N. The impact of cognitive styles on information systems design. MIS Quarterly, 2, 2 (1978), 43–54. Bostrom, R.P., and Heinen, J.S. MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, 1, 3 (1977), 17–32. Bostrom, R.P.; Olfman, L.; and Sein, M.K. The importance of learning style in end-user training. MIS Quarterly, 14, 1 (1990), 101–119. Carey, J.; Galletta, D.; Kim, J.; Te’eni, D.; Wildermuth, B.; and Zhang, P. The role of HCI in IS curricula: a call to action. Communications of the AIS, 13, 23 (2004), 357–379. Carmel, E.; Whitaker, R.; and George, J.F. Participatory design and joint application design: a transatlantic comparison. Communications of the ACM, 36, 6 (1993), 40–48. Chan, S.S.; Wolfe, R.J.; and Fang, X. Issues and strategies for integrating HCI in masters level MIS and e-commerce programs. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 4 (2003), 497–520. Compeau, D.R., and Higgins, C. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6, 2 (1995), 118–143. Compeau, D.R., and Higgins, C.A. Computer self efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 2 (1995), 189–211. Compeau, D.R.; Higgins, C.A.; and Huff, S.L. Social sognitive theory and individual reactions to comput- ing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23, 2 (1999), 145–158. Culnan, M.J. The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972–1982: a co-citation analysis. Management Science, 32, 2 (1986), 156–172. Culnan, M.J. Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS 1980–1985: a co-citation analysis. MIS Quarterly, 11, 3 (1987), 341–353. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3 (1989), 319–342. Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behav- ioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 3 (1993), 475–487. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; and Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 8 (1989), 982–1003. Dennis, A., and Garfield, M. The adoption and use of GSS in project teams: toward more participative processes and outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 27, 2 (2003), 289–323. Dennis, A.R.; Wixom, B.H.; and Vandenberg, R.J. Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group sup- port systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 25, 2 (2001), 167–193. Dickson, G.W., and Simmons, J.K. The behavioral side of MIS. Business Horizons, 13, 4 (1970), 59–71. Dishaw, M.T., and Strong, D.M. Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit con- structs. Information & Management, 36, 1 (1999), 9–21. Espinosa, A., and Carmel, E. The impact of time separation on coordination in global software teams: a con- ceptual foundation. Journal of Software Process Improvement and Practice, 8, 4 (2005), 249–266. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley, 1975. Gerlach, J., and Kuo, F.-Y. Understanding human computer interaction for information systems design. MIS Quarterly, 15, 4 (1991), 257–274. FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MIS 15
- 35. Goodhue, D. The model underlying the measurement of the impacts of the IIC on the end-users. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 5 (1997), 449–453. Goodhue, D.L. Development and measurement validity of a task-technology fit instrument for user evalua- tions of information systems. Decision Sciences, 29, 1 (1998), 105–137. Goodhue, D.L. Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science, 41, 12 (1995), 1827–1844. Goodhue, D.L., and Thompson, R.L. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 2 (1995), 213–236. Gorgone, J.T.; Gray, P.; Stohr, E.A.; Valacich, J.S.; and Wigand, R.T. MSIS 2006 curriculum review. Communications of the AIS, 15 (2005), 544–554. Gray, P., and Olfman, L. The user interface in group decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 5, 2 (1989), 119–137. Grudin, J. Interface: an evolving concept. Communications of the ACM, 36, 4 (1993), 110–119. Hackbarth, G.; Grover, V.; and Yi, M.Y. Computer playfulness and anxiety: positive and negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use. Information & Management, 40, 3 (2003), 221. Hardgrave, B.C.; Davis, F.; and Riemenschneider, C.K. Investigating determinants of software developers’ intentions to follow methodologies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 1 (2003), 123–151. Harrison, A.W., and Rainer, R.K. The influence of individual differences on skill in end-user computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9, 1 (1992), 93–112. Hefley, W.E.; Buie, E.A.; Lynch, G.F.; Muller, M.J.; Hoecker, D.G.; Carter, J.; and Roth, J.T. Integrating human factors with software engineering practices. In G. Perlman, G.K. Green, and M.S. Wogalter (eds.), Human Factors Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction: Selections from the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society Annual Meetings 1983–1994. (Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1995), 359–363. Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H.K. Four paradigms of information systems development. Communication of the ACM, 32, 10 (1989), 1199–1216. Huber, G. Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: much ado about nothing? Management Science, 29, 5 (1983), 367–379. Huber, G. Issues in the design of group decision support system. MIS Quarterly, 8, 8 (1984), 195–204. Igbaria, M.; Zinatelli, N.; Cragg, P.; and Cavaye, A.L.M. Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21, 3 (1997), 279–305. Jarvenpaa, S.L. The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies. Management Science, 35, 3 (1989), 285–303. Keil, M., and Carmel, E. Customer-developer links in software development. Communications of the ACM, 38, 5 (1995), 33–44. Kim, J.; Hahn, J.; and Hahn, H. How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive inte- gration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Information Systems Research, 11, 3 (2000), 284–303. Lamb, R., and Kling, R. Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 27, 2 (2003), 197–235. Lucas, H.C. Performance and the use of an information system. Management Science, 21, 8 (1975), 908–919. Lyytinen, K. Expectation failure concept and systems analysts’ view of information system failures: results of an exploratory study. Information & Management, 14 (1988), 45–56. Lyytinen, K.; Yoo, Y.; Varshney, U.; Ackerman, M.; Davis, G.; Avital, M.; Robey, D.; Sawyer, S.; and Sorensen, C. Surfing the next wave: design and implementation challenges of ubiquitous computing environments. Communication of the AIS, 13, 40 (2004), 697–716. Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D.F. A multidimensional commitment model of volitional systems adoption and usage behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 1 (Summer 2005), 117–151. Malone, T.W., and Crowston, K. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. Computing Surveys, 26, 1 (1994), 87–119. Mantei, M., and Teorey, T. Incorporating behavioral techniques into the system development life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3 (1989), 257–274. Markus, L.M., and Björn-Andersen, N. Power over users: its exercise by system professionals. Communication of the ACM, 30, 6 (1987), 498–504. Markus, M.L., and Keil, M. If we build IT, they will come: designing information systems that people want to use. Sloan Management Review, 35, 4 (1994), 11–25. 16 ZHANG AND GALLETTA
- 36. Markus, M.L.; Majchrzak, A.; and Gasser, L. A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly, 26, 3 (2002), 179–212. Massey, A.P., and Clapper, D.L. Element finding: the impact of a group support system on a crucial phase of sense making. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 4 (1995), 150–176. Mathieson, K. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2, 3 (1991), 173–191. Norman, D.A. Emotion and design: attractive things work better. Interactions: New Visions of Human- Computer Interaction, IX, 4 (2002), 36–42. Norman, D.A. Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2004. Olson, G., and Olson, J. User-centered design of collaboration technology. Journal of Organizational Computing, 1, 1 (1991), 41–60. Orlikowski, W.J. The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 3 (1992), 398–427. Pitts, M.G., and Browne, G.J. Stopping behavior of system analysts during information requirements elici- tation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21, 1 (2004), 203–226. Poole, M.S.; Holmes, M.; and DeSanctis, G. Conflict management in a computer-supported meeting envi- ronment. Management Science, 37, 8 (1991), 926–953. Reeves, B., and Nass, C.I. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Televisions, and New Media as Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Reinig, B.A. Toward an understanding of satisfaction with the process and outcomes of teamwork. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 4 (2003), 65–83. Reinig, B.A.; Briggs, R.O.; Shepherd, M.M.; Yen, J.; and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. Affective reward and the adoption of group support systems: productivity is not always enough. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12, 3 (1996), 171–185 Rivard, S., and Huff, S.L. User developed applications: evaluation of success from the DP department per- spective. MIS Quarterly (1984), 39–50. Russell, J.A. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 1 (2003), 145–172. Saleem, N. An empirical test of the contingency approach to user participation in information systems devel- opment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 1 (1996), 145–167. Satzinger, J.W.; Garfield, M.J.; and Nagasundaram, M. The creative process: the effects of group memory on individual idea generation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 4 (1999), 143–160. Schenk, K.D.; Vitalari, N.P.; and Davis, K.S. Differences between novice and expert systems analysts: what do we know and what do we do. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 1 (1998), 9–50. Schenkman, B.N., and Jonsson, F.U. Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 5 (2000), 367–377. Sein, M.K., and Bostrom, R. The influence of individual differences in determining the effectiveness of con- ceptual models in training novice users. Human-Computer Interaction, 4 (1989), 197–229. Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Sengupta, K., and Te’eni, D. Cognitive feedback in GDSS: improving control and convergence. MIS Quarterly, 17, 1 (1993), 87–113. Shneiderman, B. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987. Shneiderman, B. Leonardo’s Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. Shneiderman, B. Universal Usability. Communications of the ACM, 43, 5 (2000), 84–91. Shneiderman, B., and Plaisant, C. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. New York: Addison-Wesley, 2005. Swaab, R.I.; Postmes, T.; Neijens, P.; Kiers, M.H.; and Dumay, A.C.M. Multiparty negotiation support: the role of visualization’s influence on the development of shared mental models. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 1 (2002), 129–150. Swanson, E.B. Management information systems: appreciation and involvement. Management Science, 21, 2 (1974), 178–188. Taylor, S., and Todd, P.A. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 2 (1995), 144–176. FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION IN MIS 17
- 37. Te’eni, D. A cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MIS Quarterly, 25, 2 (2001), 251–312. Torkzadeh, G., and Doll, W.J. The development of a tool for measuring the perceived impact of information technology on work. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 27, 3 (1999), 327–339. Tractinsky, N.; Katz, A.S.; and Ikar, D. What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13 (2000), 127–145. van der Heijden, H. Factors influencing the usage of websites—the case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information & Management, 40, 6 (2003), 541–549. Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 4 (2000), 342–365. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 2 (2000), 186–204. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F.D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Science, 27, 3 (1996), 451–481. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; and Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3 (2003), 425–478. Vessey, I. Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22 (1991), 219–240. Vessey, I. The effect of information presentation on decision making: A cost-benefit analysis. Information & Management, 27, 2 (1994), 103–119. Vessey, I., and Galletta, D.F. Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Information Systems Research, 2, 1 (1991), 63–84. Vessey, I.; Ramesh, V.; and Glass, R.L. Research in information systems: An empirical study of diversity in the discipline and its journals. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 2 (2002), 129–174. Webster, J., and Martocchio, J.J. The differential effects of software training previews on training outcomes. Journal of Management, 21, 4 (1995), 757–787. Webster, J., and Martocchio, J.J. Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 16, 1 (1992), Yoo, Y., and Alavi, M. Media and group cohesion: relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25, 3 (2001), 371–390. Zhang, P. AIS SIGHCI three-year report. AIS SIGHCI Newsletter, 3, 1 (2004), 2–6. Zhang, P. An image construction method for visualizing managerial data. Decision Support Systems, 23, 4 (1998), 371–387. Zhang, P.; Benbasat, I.; Carey, J.; Davis, F.; Galletta, D.; and Strong, D. Human-computer interaction research in the MIS discipline. Communications of the AIS, 9, 20 (2002), 334–355. Zhang, P.; Carey, J.; Te’eni, D.; and Tremaine, M. Integrating human-computer interaction development into the systems development life cycle: a methodology. Communications of the AIS, 15 (2005), 512–543. Zhang, P., and Li, N. The importance of affective quality. Communications of the ACM, 48, 9 (2005), 105–108. Zhang, P., and Li, N. The intellectual development of human-computer interaction research in MIS: a criti- cal assessment of the MIS literature (1990–2002). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6, 11 (2005), 227–292. Zhang, P.; Nah, F.H.F.; and Preece, J. HCI Studies in MIS. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 3 (2004), 147–151. Zigurs, I., and Buckland, B.K. A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22, 3 (1998), 313–334. Zigurs, I.; Buckland, B.K.; Connolly, J.R.; and Wilson, E.V. A test of task-technology fit theory for group support systems. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 30, 3/4 (1999), 34. Zigurs, I.; Poole, S.; and DeSanctis, G. A study of influence behavior in computer-mediated group decision making. MIS Quarterly, 12, 4 (1988), 625–644. Zmud, R.W.; Anthony, W.P.; and Stair, R.M. The use of mental imagery to facilitate information identifica- tion in requirements analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9, 4 (1993), 175–191. 18 ZHANG AND GALLETTA
- 38. PART I DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES AND THE USERS
- 40. CHAPTER 2 INFORMATION INTERACTIONS Bridging Disciplines in the Creation of New Technologies ANDREW DILLON Abstract: Designing information tools that meet human and organizational requirements involves skills, methods, and theories that are beyond the scope of one field. While the human-computer interaction (HCI) community draws on several disciplines to advance the state of the art, key con- cepts in the area remain undefined and the image of the user that drives various approaches is often overly limited or unarticulated, rendering communication among researchers problematic and education of future researchers and practitioners unfocused. However, rather than starting with definition at the user or interface level, the concept of information is potentially the most impor- tant one for us to agree upon. The present chapter presents a view of information as “product with purposive process” that aims to offer a representation of information that can be shared across MIS and HCI as both disciplines seek to inform interaction design. Keywords: Information, Interdisciplinary Work, Design INTRODUCTION The design of digital information systems has been studied formally and informally for decades. Throughout this time, the intellectual ownership of the process has never been settled. Certainly Management Information Systems (MIS) has taken the issue as its core focus, but the same could be said, with varying degrees of justification, of disciplines such as computer science, software engineering, and information science, among others. It might plausibly be argued that as infor- mation systems have become such a regular feature of contemporary working life, the need to study their design within the broader context of meaning in people’s lives ensures that no one field can cover all the issues worthy of study here. Human-computer interaction (HCI) is approaching, if it has not already arrived at, legitimacy as a field of inquiry at least as delineated as MIS, if measured by such criteria as number of dedicated journals, conferences, and professional societies. But where MIS research has tended to be located largely within business school environments, HCI programs have sprung up in computer science, psychology, information studies, or informatics departments (or some combination thereof). This lack of agreed disciplinary location has both advantages and disadvantages, depending on one’s perspective, but it contributes to the impression that the field is novel or transitory, as opposed to having the departmental status of other disciplines on campus. 21
- 41. The general recognition of information systems design as a legitimate field of inquiry may be based on an interpretation that this is a form of computing research, broadly conceived. In conducting such work, a university is seen to traffic in contemporary scholarship of importance to society and its economic drivers. However, to many of us, what is really interesting about information systems is less the technological component and more the human or social aspects that underlie the study of systems use and impact. The very ubiquity that makes disciplinary ownership of information research so difficult to pinpoint becomes, in another light, the motivator for studying human behavior in this context, offering perhaps the greatest potential for building bridges between MIS and HCI. Interdisciplinary sharing is no easy matter. Concepts that are familiar and routinely used in one discipline may trigger confusion or misunderstanding in another. Expectations or standards of evidence or theory building differ, and what constitutes an important question in one area may be deemed irrelevant or of secondary concern in the other. MIS is arguably more theoretically advanced than HCI, where there has been a longstanding debate about the real value of theory to designers (e.g., Landauer, 1991), though one might counter that the form of theory most used in MIS is heavily borrowed from elsewhere and makes few original contributions to the science of human activities. Perhaps most difficult to overcome is the publishing trajectory of each disci- pline’s researchers. Scholars tend to populate publishing niches: a fixed set of journals, confer- ences, and networks where familiarity breeds communicative styles for inclusion and exclusion. These niches serve as powerful gatekeepers that render both bridge building and bridge crossing difficult. The reward structure in academia can lead to very narrow views of appropriate outlets for work (e.g., Mylonopoulos and Theoharakis, 2001). MIS departments tend to have more con- servative publishing expectations than their HCI equivalents, frequently hiring and promoting on the basis of publication record in a rather narrow but specified range of “A” journals. The low cross-citation pattern one observes between these and other fields is evidence of this. For real intellectual synergy to occur, the common ground must be readily apparent and allow recognition to follow. FINDING COMMON GROUND Emphasis within MIS is given to planning, designing, and implementing technical systems, examin- ing the human acceptance and use of these systems, and then evaluating the consequences of use for the organization involved. This is a broad terrain, especially as information systems have evolved and their uses have expanded. Current MIS research covers topics that twenty years ago were nonexistent (e.g., Galletta et al. [2004] on user tolerance of Web site delays, a paper that would be seen by many as mainstream HCI research). As a result, there are multiple outlets for MIS papers and distinct emphases within certain MIS schools on areas or types of IS research. The core literature suggests the existence of a robust discipline, so much so that Baskerville and Myers (2002) argue that it should serve as a model for other disciplines, even if MIS departments occupy a unique space in terms of the lack of pressure on faculty to fund their research through competitive grants. But even when a discipline’s arrival seems agreed upon, there may always be an identity crisis, as Benbasat and Zmud (2003) now claim exists in MIS as a result of over- diversification. Indeed, Lyytinen and King (2004) argue that feelings of inadequacy within MIS are almost as old as the discipline itself. The terrain covered by MIS is at least partly mirrored by research in HCI, which involves itself with the design and use of interactive technologies with a view to supporting the development of more usable and humanly acceptable systems (Shackel, 1997). Indeed, HCI research over the last twenty years has demonstrated wide-ranging interest in myriad technologies, often far from the 22 DILLON
- 42. commercial or industrial heart of most MIS work. The design process, the implementation of sys- tems, and the human response to information technologies are all key to work in HCI, so much so that, at first glance, the unaligned researcher might easily confuse HCI with MIS. But there is no such confusion within the ranks. Developments such as the emergence of an HCI track at the AMCIS conference, or the publication of special issues of HCI journals dealing with MIS issues, are a very recent phenomenon (Zhang and Dillon, 2003), a formal acknowledgement of the existence of shared concerns, but with no commensurate doubts as to which way the ideas may flow. One might propose a direct fit between HCI and MIS whereby those in MIS could exploit the relevant ideas and findings of HCI work on interface design when such design activities become part of their process. This would be a simple recommendation for bridge building, but not one that would necessarily lead to any conceptual cross-fertilization. MIS would draw on HCI much as computer science does, for insight or assistance at the point where users meet the tool. In return, HCI could exploit MIS as a specific application domain for its work, a context of use involving specific user types (managers) with a fairly bounded set of tasks (though it should be acknowl- edged that many MIS researchers would object to such a classification of their work). In this vein, Dillon and Morris (1999) examined the relationship between MIS and HCI disci- plines through a comparison of two key areas of research: acceptance theory in MIS and usabil- ity evaluation (UE) in HCI. They argued that these approaches were complementary, but rarely combined, and pointed to a lack of awareness in each camp of the value of the other approach. Obviously, both approaches have utility, but they do not cleanly complement each other. The operational definitions of effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in UE are not equivalent to TAM’s “ease of use” construct. Indeed it is possible that measuring usability in the UE manner might produce findings that are contradicted by TAM, since part of UE’s definition of usability is more likely measured by usefulness in TAM. UE measures behavior of users with the sys- tem, while TAM measures affect, and, unfortunately, the relationship between the two is com- plicated. What seems to be missing from the current literature in this area is a unified model of use that supports both the process of design early on and clarifies the relationship between usability and acceptability. (Dillon and Morris, 1999, p. 232) In a preliminary comparison of data obtained from both usability and acceptability measures, these authors noted that acceptance scores correlated highly with satisfaction, but neither were particularly good predictors of effective use. In other words, research could usefully explore both approaches to develop a more informed model of why people use and adopt certain information technologies. These authors advocated broadening the range of measures employed to include not only perceptual or attitudinal (e.g., TAM) and performance (e.g., task completion) measures, but objective analysis of a system’s technical power or functionality (a characterization of what utility it objectively provided) to produce a hybrid model of use that drew equally from both traditions. However, it is not clear that such an approach is ultimately the best way forward. To truly build bridges across disciplines, there needs to be a deeper sharing of key ideas and core concepts. But the obvious candidates for conceptual sharing are probably not, as might first appear, interfaces and users, since neither of these carry with them sufficient theoretical power on their own (though see DeSanctis). Attributes of interfaces or of users cannot alone explain sufficiently well how and why information systems work or fail. Research studies of users are contingent on addressing what is being used where, how, and why. Attempts to divorce user studies from these contextual issues show little prospect for revealing significant design insights (Dillon and Watson, 1996). The same is true for interfaces, which beg to be analyzed not as stand-alones, but as boundaries between INFORMATION INTERACTIONS 23
- 43. activities and agents. Handbooks of design guidelines have been proposed over the last two decades, but few, if any, have had significant impact on practice, partly because guideline application is so context-dependent. Indeed, a typical design exercise for HCI students in my classes is to develop a highly unusable interface that conforms to such guidelines, a task that often proves quite easy to complete. Obviously there is no silver bullet here, but it seems that one potentially fruitful area for exploration, beyond users and interfaces, is the concept of information, wherein clarification of its nature and purpose for human activities might indicate more fundamental issues of relevance to both fields. INFORMATION, NOT INTERACTION, AS A THE BASIS OF A SHARED PERSPECTIVE Although the term “information” is ubiquitous, its definition as a meaningful concept in research on systems design remains somewhat vague. But how can this be? For researchers in MIS, infor- mation is a resource to be managed systematically to serve a common purpose; its impact on organizations and users can be reliably measured (e.g., McLeod and Schell, 2004). The emphasis therefore is on resource management, and, in particular, on creating better tools to support this activity. Travica (1999) argues that the use of information in this field tends to reduce the term to whatever technological application is being discussed, rendering it machine-processed data imbued with a business purpose. The emphasis of the field therefore is more on the processing, not on the concept, of information. Within HCI, the term “information” is rarely, if ever, dealt with systematically. By its very name, HCI supposes that humans are using computers, and whatever it is that computers traffic in presumably defines information sufficiently well for this purpose. But the picture is more com- plicated than this. The term “interaction” in HCI may in fact be a historical anomaly. In early work, the acronym “HCI” was often taken to refer to the “human-computer interface” (for a thor- ough historical overview of the field up to the turn of the century, see Shackel 1997). By the 1980s “interaction” had replaced “interface” in common usage, even though many people remained uncom- fortable with the idea that humans and computers ever interacted (Suchman, 1987). Neverthe- less, computers were seen as information processors and the goal of HCI research was to help ease the processing of information and to render computers more usable for their intended user population. But information as a concept still has only vague status within HCI and MIS, oddly enough. Despite the term’s prominence, reflected in titles and publications, critical treatment of the infor- mation concept is not the norm. The most recent edition of the Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (Helander et al., 1997), a standard reference within the field, contains multiple listings of the term in its index, but these are references to other areas where the term itself is employed conjointly, such as “information visualization,” “information superhighway,” “information retrieval,” or “information filtering.” Information alone is not defined, and certainly is not a cen- tral focus of writings on HCI. For HCI researchers, the goal of their work is more to understand how devices that manipulate and present “information” can be designed for ease of use; this has led to an emphasis on usability, with its attendant focus on efficiency of user performance. Yet information is central to HCI since the very goal of design is to create tools that get out of the way of users and their tasks, to create transparency in their workings so as to facilitate smoother inter- action. A similar exercise in a current MIS textbook by Laudon and Laudon (2003) also lacks a detailed definition of the concept; indeed, the index to the 8th edition of this well-regarded text mentions the term “information” by itself only twice. 24 DILLON
- 44. Even though defining commonsense terms is something of a thankless task, “information” has been subject to several attempts at definition over the years. Most noticeably, within the broad information studies realm (e.g., Williams and Carbo, 1997), a strong theme has been the need to draw firm lines between raw data and information. Accordingly, data is seen as the base material that conveys little in and of itself unless ordered, processed, or otherwise made useful to its recip- ients. Once given meaningful form, data becomes information. Given the strong ties between psy- chology and both MIS and HCI, it is odd that this distinction has little or no currency in cognitive psychology, where data and information are typically treated synonymously. Conceptualizing information does not end with its demarcation from data. Information can itself be distinguished from knowledge, which in turn can be distinguished from wisdom, and more than a few books have been written on these terms and their putative relationships. In their classic text Working Knowledge, Davenport and Prusak (1997) articulate a view of information as “data that makes a difference” to the receiver, thereby highlighting the problems associated with extracting the important elements of a data set or the need to avoid being overwhelmed by too much data. Information, thus construed, has relevance or purpose, and is extracted or transformed from data by what these authors refer to as “the five C’s”: contextualization, categorization, calculation, correction, or condensation. One does not have to accept the “five C’s” approach to recognize that technology clearly plays a role in adding value to data. Thus, one can envisage an MIS- or HCI-style analysis of informa- tion tools or systems built on this view. Visualization tools can categorize data to be viewed in new ways, enhancing the emergence of information from complex data sets. Calculation is the backbone of computing, the defining triumph of what Landauer (1995) described as the first stage of computing, where technologies performed information tasks at a level impossible for humans to match. But technological support for Davenport and Prusak’s methods is not the full story here, as these authors themselves acknowledge. More crucially, distinctions between data, information, and knowledge bring a significant human factor into the discussion, implying that data becomes information only when a user (a knowing human) makes sense of it and when it makes a difference for him or her. Making sense is itself multiply determined and context-dependent (Dervin, 1989), but the crucial distinction rests on the extraction of meaning or the imposition of order through human processing of some kind. It is precisely because of this human factor that we cannot simply equate information with objects such as books or DVDs, no matter how appealing such a usage is at first. Buckland (1991) wrote a much-cited article on this in which he referred to the objectification of “information- as-thing.” My reading of his argument is not that information is an object, but that once informa- tion is viewed as the potential for intelligent reading of data, there are few objects in our world that cannot serve as information, under some set of conditions. Equating information to data that makes a difference for certain people is certainly a start, but is it a sufficiently strong basis for a field of study? There are alternatives, most noticeably the mathematical conceptualization of information that defines information in terms of the confi- dence levels in receivers of the conditions that exist at the source. Put another way, this defines information as the reduction of receiver uncertainty (e.g., Gharhamani, 2003), which is clearly a difference that is meaningful. This view of information has had significant impact on the design of computing systems, and both informed and drew on classic information processing theories of human cognition. However, I cannot see a way forward for our present concerns by utilizing this approach since it scales weakly to real-world tasks involving humans and information systems. Dillon (2004) proposed a view of information as product with purposive process, arguing that information does not reside in objects or entities, but emerges from the engagement of such objects INFORMATION INTERACTIONS 25
- 45. with humans as they go about their tasks in situ. In other words, books, DVDs, and databases do not contain information; they contain data. But information can result or emerge from the inter- action of the data-carrying entity with a human. Humans can exploit the information potential of data objects only if they have the intelligence or capability to do so, and some of this capability is technological, though the majority of it is probably psychological. A book in a language you can- not read has significantly less data that you can exploit for information purposes than a book in your own language. But note that even such a book has some information potential for you, since your experience of books will undoubtedly lead you to conclude that this artifact possesses the capability to inform by virtue of its scriptlike qualities and ordered structure. By extension, the information potential of any one data source will vary tremendously across the user population. Different users’ different needs for the same data set will drive their exami- nation and interpretation processes in distinct ways. This is the classic task effect with which we are all so familiar in systems design and evaluation. But beyond task differences, the psychologi- cal makeup of any one user is unique, so, at a very personal level, there will always be many dif- ferent ways in which information is viewed, even by users performing the same tasks with the same data set and artifact. Furthermore, users are not isolated beings. There is always a strong contextual element to data exploration and interpretation, which ensures that information must be conceived of in terms of its occurrence of use, and the organizational, social, and cultural milieu in which use is made. RETHINKING INFORMATION AS PRODUCT WITH POTENTIAL Product with purposive process might be more neatly thought of as “product with potential,” an approach that aims to overcome the forced separation of information into objects (products) or acts (processes) by advancing a view of information as the emergent property resulting from the purposing of these two elements into a meaningful context. Equating information with products is an old habit, enforced by years of emphasis within the information world on collecting and storing data. While this has given rise to established methods and procedures in the collection and management realm, there has been a lack of commensurate theoretical and methodological development in the process aspects of information making. What are labeled in Figure 2.1 as the “arc of interpretation” and “arc of exploration” are funda- mentally psychological phenomena that can be difficult to measure. Indeed, despite the routine use of “comprehension” as a measure of student performance in our universities, cognitive scien- tists do not even agree that the process can be defined. The point here though, is that our views of information have tended to be heavily one-sided, led by an objectification of the concept coupled with a weakly articulated assumption of the necessary human processing involved. The term “mediation” is used in Figure 2.1 to highlight the often-essential role of some mech- anism for translation between data and a human. Information technology is one such mediator, but it is not the only kind. Other experts, information specialists, coworkers, and the like can all serve as mediators in some contexts. However, for purposes of the present discussion, information technology is the primary mediator of interest. Thus, such technology carries, stores, retrieves, and presents data. It can provide a physical instantiation of data or the mechanism for making vis- ible or audible the data of interest. Without this, it is not clear that we truly have an instance of information exchange. This is an important distinction. People can communicate directly with each other and we often talk of this as the exchange of information, but it is not clear that infor- mation has truly been exchanged. Data has certainly passed between the communicants, but this is not alone a sufficient basis for us to consider the process informational in a form that we would 26 DILLON
- 46. wish to study for systems design. This is not to say that meaning cannot be made in such exchanges, or more likely, that these exchanges, in the context of discussions about some objec- tified data set, are not informational, but that simple conversation between people is not the fun- damental unit of information studies. The field of information studies properly involves artifacts involved in the acts of interpretation and exploration of data sets. What this does imply is that an informational analysis of human activity is not the same as a communicational study or a sociological study, even though all may share many similarities of method and purpose. An informational analysis is built on a representation of some data first and foremost. Where the data is not represented in some form observable by a third party not present at the initial exchange, then the informational perspective, in the formal sense implied by a field of information studies (MIS or HCI) is not invoked. So studies of information systems rest on data artifacts (technologies) of some type, which we may define to include the very artifacts and objects many take as information itself, as noted by Buckland. The term “technology” is used here to include the abstracted and embodied forms of data that are accessible to us when removed (temporally or physically) from the initial events or contexts of creation. Humans have created an elaborate set of such technologies to capture, manipulate, store, retrieve, and transfer data sets. This is the province of information and the design of information sys- tems. In this light, the distinctions between MIS and HCI really do seem trivial, and are really ones of emphasis on specific details. This difference of emphasis is insufficient, in my mind, to warrant very formal distinctions between the fields of the kind we currently see within academia. INTERACTION THROUGH INFORMATION If we consider information, as product with potential, to be the basis for sharing ideas between MIS and HCI, how may we proceed? One option is to recast MIS and HCI within an enriched empha- sis on information. In the first instance, this view recognizes the fields as sharing considerable INFORMATION INTERACTIONS 27 Context Data Human Mediation Arc of Interpretation Arc of Exploration Figure 2.1 Information as Product with Purposive Process
- 47. intellectual overlap without them being equivalent. This lack of equivalence should not be seen as indicative of much more than natural differentiation resulting from institutionalized activities at the university department level. Although MIS and HCI can certainly be compared and contrasted in terms of core theory and major venues of activity, a large source of difference naturally emerges from the academic homes in which they exist and this source of difference will always affect the development and shaping of the discipline. That aside, from an information perspective, MIS can be considered to be primarily concerned with identifying, abstracting, and supporting the data flows that exist in organizations, and develop- ing or supporting the technological (broadly conceived) means of exploiting the potential to serve organizational ends. Similarly, HCI seeks to maximize the use of information through the design of humanly acceptable representational and manipulatory tools. These characterizations clearly emphasize commonality but also highlight aspects or facets of interest that are more properly thought of as belonging more in one discipline than in others. An informational basis for comparing MIS and HCI could lead us to several interesting posi- tions. First, is MIS just a bounded context of inquiry for tackling HCI problems? Given its indus- trial and organizational application zone, the emphasis in much MIS work might be taken as a sign of disinterest in some of the broader areas of inquiry pursued by certain mainstream HCI researchers, e.g., work in hypermedia design for education, or the significant body of HCI work that has addressed problems in aviation or vehicle interfaces (e.g., Wickens, 1991). There seems to be no fundamental reason why much of what has emerged from MIS could not be of use in this broader arena, but it is still the case that a typical MIS conference contains research that originates in or is applied to a more constrained set of usage environments or contexts than would be found at an HCI conference. This may be changing as MIS researchers begin to consider online education and computer-mediated consumer behavior more broadly, but blurred or not, the boundaries still remain. A second interesting aspect of an informational analysis concerns the relative strengths of theory in MIS and HCI. It is probably the case that theoretical structures have been more keenly erected in MIS than in HCI. It is not obvious why this should be the case, since one might argue that HCI’s focus on human psychology would have enabled it to borrow easily from well-established social science work in cognition. The problem, more likely, is that borrowing from cognitive psy- chology has proven to be more problematic for HCI than borrowing from social psychology has been for MIS, since the theoretical models driving work in perception, categorization, decision making, etc., have limited generalizability when seeking guidance for design outside of decisions that affect rapid aspects of interaction (keypresses, layout, image quality, etc.). There is little direct guidance in cognitive psychology for designers interested in usability, with the result that empiricism trumps rationalism in HCI literature.1 Like any applied field, MIS has also borrowed heavily from outside, although in doing so, it has tended to emphasize more social psychological perspectives than cognitive ones. Social psy- chological models have two distinct advantages: first, they tend to traffic in more observable human actions; second, they place greater emphasis on the environment in which human action occurs than do most cognitive approaches. As a result, the level of discourse that underlies MIS can more easily transpose social psychological models to meaningful issues in the application domain. In part this has been recognized in later HCI work, where concerns with collaboration and computer- supported work have caused a shift in that field towards more socially informed theorizing. If we can see HCI and MIS as highly overlapping, but differing mainly in terms of contexts stud- ied and theoretical borrowings, it may be possible to identify research problems that both share or could inform. A point of overlap for both MIS and HCI is the establishment of the purpose, the 28 DILLON
- 48. reason that the system for information handling and transfer is being constructed. This is the basis for most work in systems design, but can be lost, certainly in HCI, once concerns for usability lead to a focus on interface features. HCI researchers tend to talk in terms of tasks when thinking about usability, but tasks are not the basic unit of analysis within MIS research. Usability has become rather narrowly understood to mean effectiveness, efficiency, and satis- faction for specified users, tasks, and contexts (e.g., Bevan and Macleod, 1994). Work in this area focuses on determining the criteria for usability and then measuring an interface against them in a user test. Such work has often been criticized for emphasizing performance outside of normal usage patterns and situations. Indeed, usability, as a formal concept, has barely made a move from the HCI world to other areas such as MIS where its relevance is, at first blush, obvious. Determining criteria for effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, to use the major ISO 9241 outline of usability, could actually be a real shared concern for MIS and HCI researchers. Under- standing the forces that shape expectations for task performance with a system will open up areas of management, ownership, responsibility, and organizational expectations that are not typical of usability-oriented research. Indeed, a more socio-technical form of analysis of computer use has embraced usability in this manner with some success (e.g., Eason, 1989; Dillon, 2000), but it remains the exception rather than the norm in HCI work. By adopting a view of context more typ- ical of MIS work in considerations of usability, there may be a broadening of the typical HCI approach that could benefit both communities and lead to a clearer articulation of what makes people use information systems. Such an articulation would possibly have greater potential for application to design than survey- or a user test–based approaches. There are pockets of research in HCI on interface design, navigation in information space, or task performance in non-work-related activities that have developed strong empirical research findings and even some well-developed articulation of theoretical frameworks (e.g., Carroll, 1999; Dillon, 2004). While predictive modeling in HCI is limited (and has something of a bad reputation in this field) these areas are well enough understood for us to be able to predict user response with great accuracy in some circumstances. This is, again, one more area in which shared approaches can yield gains. By turning our collective attention to information as product with purposive process or poten- tial, we can start to articulate a more unified view of what problems we share and what methods we may use to solve them. Seeking a greater perspective than a user and a task, HCI could gain much from the organizational emphasis embraced by MIS, while yielding significant findings itself to the MIS concern with end-user response. But to get there we need a basis for sharing ideas that goes beyond the general terminology and concepts currently employed independently by each discipline. A shared view of information seems a plausible first candidate for developing a common platform for exchange. WHY DO WE CARE? The goals of research into information system design are many, including practical application of the results to real organizations, the formulation of better theories of human activities, and the design of new innovative products that can extend our capabilities as humans. No one discipline has a monopoly on the issues or can claim to be the birthing ground for invention and design. Yet disciplines such as MIS and HCI do have legitimate inputs that can help shape better systems. Harnessing the insights and perspectives of more than one field is problematic but, if successful, would likely yield real benefits to scholars and practitioners. INFORMATION INTERACTIONS 29
- 49. Information systems design has been characterized as an area that emerged in response to a phenomenon (King, 1993), but the concern with designing tools or products for users has a longer history than the computer, with associated sets of values and approaches that warrant a significant historical analysis in their own right to untangle. Talk of interdisciplinary exchanges is compara- tively popular and easy; the practice is somewhat more complicated. A commonly understood set of terms is a necessary first step, and my argument here is that the key term for us all to become com- fortable with is “information.” Moving beyond data is important, but we need to move together to build the bridge. Foundation or keystone, information is our common concern. NOTE 1. This is not to say that cognitive psychology is not relevant, only that it requires significant translation to take lab findings and apply them meaningfully so as to guide interface design effectively. REFERENCES Baskerville, R.L., and Myers, M.D. Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26, 1 (2002), 1–14. Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the dis- cipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly, 27, 2 (2003), 183–194. Bevan, N., and Macleod, M. Usability measurement in context. Behavior and Information Technology, 13, 2 (1994), 132–145. Buckland, M. Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 5 (1991), 351–360. Card, S.; Moran, T.; and Newell, A. The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction. Norwood, NJ: LEA, 1983. Carroll, J. (ed.) Minimalism: Beyond the Nurnberg Funnel. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1999. Dervin, B. Users as research inventions: how research categories perpetuate inequities. Journal of Communication, 38, 3 (1989), 216–232. Dillon, A. Group dynamics meet cognition: applying socio-technical concepts in the design of information systems. In E. Coakes, D. Willis, and R. Lloyd-Jones (eds.), The New SocioTech: Graffiti on the Long Wall. London: Springer Verlag, 2000, pp. 119–125. Dillon, A. What is this thing called information? In H. van Oostendorp, L. Breure, and A. Dillon (eds.), Creation, Use and Deployment of Digital Information. Norfolk: LEA, 2005, pp. 307–316. Dillon, A., and Morris, M. P3: modeling and measuring the human determinants of information systems usage. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: HFES, 1999, pp. 231–237. Dillon, A., and Watson, C. User analysis in HCI: the historical lessons from individual differences research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 6 (1996), 619–637. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3 (1989), 319–334. Davenport, T., and Prusak, L. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. Galletta, D.; Henry, R.; McCoy, S.; and Polak, P. Web site delays: how tolerant are users? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5, 1 (2004), 1–28. Gharhamani, Z. Information theory. In Macmillan Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, vol. 2. London: Nature Publishing Group, 2003, pp. 551–555. Helander, M.; Landauer, T.; and Prabhu, V. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1997. Hobart, M., and Schiffman, Z. Information Ages: Literacy, Numeracy and the Computer Revolution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. King, J.L. The IS field—what’s in a name? Information Systems Research, 4, 4 (1993), 291–298. Landauer, T. Let’s get real: a position paper on the role of cognitive psychology in the design of humanly useful and usable systems. In J. Carroll (ed.) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. New York: Cambridge: University Press, 1991, pp. 60–73. 30 DILLON
- 50. Landauer, T. The Trouble with Computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. Laudon, J., and Laudon, K. Management Information Systems, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003. McLeod, R., and Schell, G. Management Information Systems, 9th ed. New York: Prentice Hall, 2004. Mylonopoulos, N., and Theoharakis, V. Global perceptions of IS journals. Communications of the ACM, 44, 9 (2001), 29–33. Shackel, B. Human-computer interaction—whence and whither? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 11 (1997), 970–986. Suchman, L. Plans and Situated Action: The Problem of Human-Machine Communications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Travica, B. New Organizational Designs: Information Aspects. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing, 1999. Williams, J., and Carbo, T. Information Science: Still an Emerging Discipline, Pittsburgh, PA: Cathedral Publishing, 1997. Zhang, P., and Dillon, A. HCI and MIS: shared concerns. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 4 (2003), 397–522. INFORMATION INTERACTIONS 31
- 51. CHAPTER 3 HCI AS MIS ADRIENNE OLNICK KUTZSCHAN AND JANE WEBSTER Abstract: Human-computer interaction has traditionally been studied within computer science, engineering, psychology, and, to a much smaller degree, business. Each area brings its own unique contributions to the field. Nevertheless, this paper presents the argument that management information systems (MIS) researchers in business schools are distinctively positioned to address HCI issues, as they focus on people, information technologies, and wider contextual issues. MIS researchers’ big-picture perspective, combined with related theory and rigorous methodologies, support this position. In addition, they have the unique ability not only to study applications dur- ing development, but to follow them through to market. For instance, there is a current void within HCI research of large-scale studies that include employee interactions with actual technologies; this represents a substantial opportunity for MIS researchers. This paper identifies issues that may be inhibiting MIS’s ability to take full advantage of this opportunity, and makes suggestions for speeding up the progress of research in this area. Keywords: Human-Computer Interaction, Management Information Systems, Reference Disci- pline, Undergraduate Education INTRODUCTION “HCI often falls in the cracks between university departments, such as Psychology, Computer Science, and perhaps Business.” (survey respondent quoted in Singer et al., 2003) This paper argues that business schools need to take the lead to ensure that HCI no longer falls between the cracks. With many computer-based systems now accessible not only by employees but by consumers and the general population, human-computer interaction (HCI) has come to repre- sent a key topic for businesses. Well-designed software can result in business benefits such as decreased development costs, fewer user difficulties in finding desired information on Web sites, increased return visits and sales from e-commerce sites, and higher user satisfaction (UsabilityNet, 2003). For example, navigation features for product lists have been found to reduce the time to pur- chase ratio, and ultimately to account for variance in monthly sales (Lohse and Spiller, 1999). While these findings are important, the adoption of HCI design principles, such as those for navigation, has been a slow process and to date these principles are still not fully implemented within the marketplace. Jakob Nielsen argued that the “first ten years of commercial web sites were a lost decade with very few designs that truly worked for customers” (Neal, 2003). According to Norman Nielson Group researchers, the average e-commerce Web site followed only 49 percent 32
- 52. HCI AS MIS 33 of NNG e-commerce usability standards in 2002, and this was up from only 45 percent in 2000 (Lang, 2002). In fact, the highest scoring e-commerce Web site followed only 66 percent of the e-commerce standards in 2002 (Nielsen, 2002). This was further substantiated by Webster and Ahuja (2006), who found that only 34 percent of the popular Web sites had site maps; 77 percent had navigation links on all pages; and 70 percent had consistent displays. Given that even the most popular Web sites fail to consistently follow design guidelines, one can argue that HCI research is not currently informing organizational applications at an accept- able rate. There may be two reasons for this phenomenon. Developers of applications and/or products may not find HCI research to be helpful or relevant. For example, if the research suffers from weak methodology and/or theoretical foundations, then it may be difficult to interpret its results. Second, organizational members, such as marketers and application developers, may not know enough about HCI to follow development standards or even know that development stan- dards exist. Therefore, there appears to be a disconnection between HCI researchers, HCI knowl- edge and training in organizations, and marketplace needs. In today’s fast-paced economy, HCI and usability practitioners are calling for relevance in HCI research (Czerwinski et al., 2003) and the marketplace continues to call for well-designed inter- faces. HCI has been criticized for its lack of sensitivity to business issues, and this has been cred- ited with holding HCI back from realizing its potential as a discipline (Gray and Salzman, 1998; Zolli, 2004). It is now becoming clear that HCI research and education are not regularly produc- ing research that is tied to business and/or marketplace needs and are not developing HCI curric- ula that are sufficiently applied in organizations. In response to these concerns, this paper makes the simple argument that human-computer inter- action’s natural home is not within psychology or computer science, but within business schools. To justify this argument, this paper will: first, review the differences between discipline-specific con- ceptualizations of HCI; second, describe the current state of HCI research and education; third, dis- cuss how business disciplines, and more specifically management information systems (MIS), can contribute to HCI; and, finally, review the potential factors that may be holding MIS back from making these contributions, concluding with a list of suggested solutions to these challenges. MULTIPLE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF HCI Computer science and psychology are viewed as the intellectual foundations of HCI. Both areas study the interaction of the person and the technology, but incline toward their strengths in these respective areas. For instance, psychologists tend to focus more on individual characteristics and behaviors. An example of such an article would be one examining extroverts’ and introverts’ reac- tions to computer-generated speech on Web sites (Nass and Lee, 2001). In psychology, HCI is often called “human factors,”1 and HCI researchers are supported by the American Psychological Association’s division of “Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology.” This division describes human factors as the “psychological principles relating human behavior to the design and use of environments and systems within which people work and live” (APA, 2004). Conversely, computer scientists focus more on developing technologies for the computer inter- face. An example would be a recent study that examines different types of diagrams for informa- tion structures, but does not take into account individual characteristics (Irani and Ware, 2003). Computer scientists are supported by the Association for Computing Machinery’s (ACM) special interest group on computer-human interaction (SIGCHI) that describes CHI as “the design, eval- uation, implementation, and study of interactive computing systems for human use.”
- 53. 34 KUTZSCHAN AND WEBSTER Although each of these HCI perspectives contributes to our understanding of the roles of the individual and technology, neither computer science nor psychology emphasizes the importance of other crucial variables such as information, tasks, and/or varying contexts (Dillon, chapter 2 in this volume). We feel that the lack of emphasis on these variables creates an incomplete definition of HCI. By contrast, business researchers, supported by the Association for Information Systems’ (AIS) special interest group on human-computer interaction (SIGHCI), define HCI as “the inter- action between humans, information, technologies, and tasks, especially in the business, manage- rial, organizational, and cultural contexts” (AIS, 2004). In addition to the noticeable fact that MIS researchers put the “human” before the “computer” (while this is reversed for computer scientists’ SIGCHI), MIS researchers also take a more contextual view of HCI, considering wider task, orga- nizational, and international issues. Thus, MIS researchers view HCI as the interplay not only between the human and the computer, but among other factors such as job characteristics and environmental issues (see Figure 3.1); in other words, HCI in MIS concerns the human use of technologies to support tasks within particular contexts (Zhang and Li, 2004). This results in MIS researchers working at a wide range of levels of analysis, from individual to cross-cultural issues.2 THE CURRENT STATE OF HCI RESEARCH AND EDUCATION With the wider contextual strengths of MIS, one would expect HCI to reside mainly in business schools. HCI has represented a small, but core, element of MIS since its inception as a discipline (e.g., Mason and Mitroff, 1973). It regularly shows up in summaries of research areas within MIS (e.g., Banker and Kauffman, 2004; Swanson and Ramiller, 1993), and it continues to grow in impor- tance in MIS research (Carey et al., 2004; Chan et al., 2003). However, HCI has many homes, with, as we demonstrate next, the majority of HCI research and teaching occurring outside of business schools. Basic Technologies: e.g., input, output Advanced Technologies: e.g., attentive interfaces Computer Human Demographics Cognitive Characteristics Physical/Motor Skills Psychological Characteristics Job Task Goals Task Characteristics HCI Source: Adapted from Zhang and Li (2004). Environment Organizational Social Global Figure 3.1 Human-Computer Interaction in Business
- 54. HCI Research To date, HCI research has been credited with drawing attention to the importance and benefits of well-designed interfaces. However, HCI has also been criticized for not grounding its research in theory, not including contextual variables (i.e., variables beyond the person and the technology, such as organizational characteristics), using small sample sizes, and including methods and analysis techniques that are not always appropriate (Galletta et al., 2003; Gray and Salzman, 1998). For example, a review of an emerging area of HCI research, instant messaging (IM), noted that many of the studies do not draw from a theoretical base, do not include representative sam- ples (rather they draw on the developers’ colleagues in their own organizations or investigate teenagers or university students), are conducted by the developers of the systems themselves, and are presented at conferences, rather than published in journals (Cameron and Webster, 2005). Further, examining the home department of the IM articles’ authors, we see that more than 80 percent are located either in technology-based industry research labs or in computer science. To examine a more mature stream of HCI research, we also reviewed research on user disorien- tation, a topic that has been studied at least since the days of hypertext (e.g., Conklin, 1987). This topic was chosen because it has been referred to as one of the most important issues in hypertext navigation (Otter and Johnson, 2000), and because navigation has been identified as the fourth most frequently researched area by HCI practitioners (Singer et al., 2003). Furthermore, difficulty in finding features is among the most frequently cited reason for user frustration (Ceaparu et al., 2002). Within this older stream of research, we see more researchers outside of the computer sci- ence area. However, many of the weaknesses described above were still demonstrated. For exam- ple, most of the studies did not include contextual variables, did not provide strong theoretical justifications, and studied university students. Consistent with Gray and Salzman’s (1998) critique of HCI experiments, we saw studies that could have been designed better: for example, some of the studies that were called experiments were actually studies that included no comparison or control groups (similar to “usability” studies). Furthermore, over half of the studies included sample sizes of thirty or less and almost half presented simple analytic findings, such as frequencies and corre- lations (see Table 3.1). Both IM and disorientation research provide areas where MIS researchers can and do con- tribute. For example, within the disorientation literature, the majority of business researchers include much larger sample sizes and employ more rigorous methodologies. Furthermore, they are positioned to be more aware of wider contextual variables and current business and market needs. Therefore, we believe that MIS researchers in business schools have the unique capabilities to provide not only business sensitivity, but also methodological and theoretical rigor. HCI Teaching To examine where HCI education currently resides, we collected information from the Web on undergraduate HCI courses offered in the English language.3 In order to be included here, the terms of HCI, human computer interaction, human-computer interaction, computer-human inter- action, human factors, and/or usability had to be listed in either the course title or, when available, the course description. On occasion, only the program descriptions were included on the Web and the courses associated with each program were not specifically listed. When this occurred, the program levels were often described in detail. If the program level description included any of these same terms, then it was included as an HCI course. Alternatively, if the program did not provide a description of levels and/or a list of courses, it was not included in this summary. HCI AS MIS 35
- 55. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 56. lessened. You realize that a moment later when your peregrinating grandstand rolls by a solemn-faced man walking down the street—a big man in a black suit, his face hidden by a black slouch hat. "Mr. Bryan," whispers the lecturer, this time without the megaphone. It is quite unnecessary. For a brief instant Washington is forgotten. In that instant the crowd regards the second or third best- known man in America—silently and curiously. The lecturer brings them back to their dollar's worth. He boldly points out the Larz Anderson house as the home of "the richest real estate man in the country," the new home of Perry Belmont as having "three stories above ground and three below"—an excursionist from Reading, Pa., interrupts to ask how much coal they will need to fill such a cellar— you see the home of the late Mr. Walsh with "a forty-five hundred dollar marble bench in the yard, all cut out of a single piece," the sedate and stately house of Gifford Pinchot. It is pleasant, driving through these smooth Washington streets, even if the low-hanging tree branches do make you jump and start at times. You go up this street, down that, past long rows of neat Colonial houses that some day are going to look neat and old—turn by one of the lovely open squares of the city. They have just erected a statue there—grandstands are already going up around about it and there will be speeches and oratory before long. Washington is constantly in the throes of an epidemic of dedications. There are now more statues in the city than Mr. Baedeker ever can tally and each of them has undergone dedication —at least once. The President has been corralled, if possible, although Mr. Wilson has already shown a reticence for this sort of thing. If the President simply will not come, a Governor or a rather famous Senator will do as well. And in the far pinch there are many Representatives in Washington who are mighty good orators. You can almost get a Representative at the crook of your finger, and you
- 57. cannot have a real dedication without a splurry of oratory. It is almost as necessary as music—or the refreshments. As you slip by one of those statues—"the equestrian figure of General Andrew Jackson on horseback"—the gentleman from Reading demands that the car stop. He wants to ask a question and apparently he cannot ask a question and be in motion at the same time. So he demands that the car be stopped. It is one of the privileges of a man who has paid a perfectly good dollar for the trip. The car stops—abruptly. You will probably recall that Jackson statue, standing in the center of Lafayette square and directly in front of the White House. Perhaps General Jackson rode a horse that way and perhaps he did not, but there the doughty old warrior sits, his bronze mount plunging high upon hind legs. "What is ever going to keep that statue from falling over some day?" demands the man from Reading. He has a keen professional interest in the matter, for he has been a blacksmith up in that brisk Pennsylvania town for many a year.
- 58. Through the portals of this Union Station come all the visitors to Washington The lecturer explains that the tail of the bronze horse is heavily weighted and that the whole figure is held in balance that way. But the blacksmith is Pennsylvania Dutch—of the sort not to be convinced in an instant—and he sets forth his opinion of the danger at length, to the bald-headed man from Baltimore, who sits just behind him.
- 59. The lecturer goes forward once again. You look at the proud old mansion that faces Lafayette square, and gasp when the intelligent young man with the megaphone tells you that it was given to Daniel Webster by the American people and that he gambled it away. You notice the house that Admiral Dewey got from the same source, and wonder if he could not have contrived possibly to gamble it away. You note St. John's church—"the Church of State," the young man calls it—and turn into Sixteenth street. But alas, it is Sixteenth street no longer. Through a bit of the official snobbery that frequently comes to the surface in the governing of the national capital that fine highway has been named "the Avenue of the Presidents," a name that is so out of harmony of our fine American town that it will probably be changed in the not distant future. The lecturer points your attention to another house. "The Dolly Madison Hotel, for women only," he announces. "No men or dogs allowed above the first floor. The only male thing around the premises is the mail-box and it is—" He has gone too far. You fix your steely glance of disapproval upon him and he withers. He drops his megaphone and whispers into your ear once again: "I hate to do it," he apologizes, "but I have to. The boss says: —'Give 'em wit an' humor, Harry, or back you goes to your old job on a Fourteenth street car.' Think of givin' that bunch wit an' humor! Look at that old sobersides next to you, still a-worryin' about that statue!" Wit and humor it is then. Wit and humor and wealth and fashion. It almost seems too little to offer a mere dollar for such joys. You make the turn around the drive in back of the White House and you miss the Taft cow—which in other days was wont to feast upon the greensward. You ask the lecturer what became of Mr. Taft's cow.
- 60. "She was deceased," he solemnly explained, "a year before his term was up—of the colic." And of that somewhat ambiguous statement you can make your own translation. * * * * * The sight-seeing car stops at the little group of hotels in Pennsylvania avenue, near the site of the old Baltimore & Potomac railroad station. The lecturer begins to use his megaphone to expatiate upon the advantages of a trip to Arlington which is about to begin, but Arlington is too sweetly serious a memorial to be explored by a humorous motor-car. And—in the offing—you are seeing something else. Another car of the line upon which you have been voyaging is moored at the very point from which you started, not quite two hours ago. Upon that car sit the same two young black-haired ladies. Two young men are climbing up to sit beside them. Your gaze wanders. On the rival car across the way the two very blondes in black are still holding giggling conversation. Your suspicions are roused. Do they ever ride? Apparently not. Tomorrow they will be upon the cars again, the blondes upon the right, the brunettes upon the left. And the day after tomorrow they will sit and wait and appear interested and in joyous anticipation. And if it rains upon the following day they will don their little mackintoshes and talk pleasantly about its being nearly time to clear up. Now you know. Seein' Washington employs cappers. Those young ladies sit there to induce dollars—faith, 'tis seduction, pure and simple—from narrow masculine pockets. You do know, now.
- 61. * * * * * If we are giving much space to the tourist view of Washington it is because the tourist plays so important a part in the life of the town. He is one of its chief assets and, seriously speaking, there is something rather pathetic in the joy that comes to the faces of those who step out from the great portals of the new station for the very first time. There is something in their very expressions that seems to express long seasons of saving and of scrimping, perhaps of downright deprivation in order that our great American mecca may finally be reached. You will see the same expressions upon the faces of the humbler folk who go to visit any of the great expositions that periodically are held across the land. That expression of eminent satisfaction—for who could fail to see Washington for the first time and not be eminently satisfied— reaches its climax each week-day afternoon in the East Room of the White House. If President Wilson has reached a finer determination than his determination to let the folk of his nation-wide family come and see him, we have yet to hear of it. And there is not a man or woman in the land who should be above attending the simple official reception that the President gives each afternoon at his house to all who may care to come. There is little red-tape about the arrangements in advance. The tendency to hedge the President around with restrictions has been completely offset in the present administration. A note or a hurried call upon the President's secretary in advance—a card of invitation is quickly forthcoming. And at half-past two o'clock of any ordinary afternoon you present yourself at the east wing of the White House. Your card is quickly scrutinized and you may be sure of it that the sharp-eyed Irishman who is more than policeman but rather a mentor at the gate, has scrutinized you, too. His judgment is quick, rarely erring. And unless you meet his entire approval, you are not going to enter the President's house. But he has approved and
- 62. before you know it you—there are several hundred of you—are slipping forward in a march into the basement of the Executive Mansion and up one of its broad stairs. There are numerous attendants along the path. "Single file!" shouts one of them and single file you all go—just as you used to play Indian or follow-your-leader in long-ago days. And you all step from the stair-head into the East Room, while the women-folk among you conjure imagination to their aid and endeavor to see that lovely apartment dressed for a great reception or, best of all, one of the infrequent White House weddings. Other attendants quickly and easily form you into a great crescent, two or three human files in width and extending in a great sweep from a vast pair of closed doors which give to the living portion of the house. No one speaks, but every one takes stock of his neighbors. If it is in vacation season there are many boys and girls—for whole schools make the Washington expedition in these days—there may be several Indians in war-paint and feather making ceremonious visit to the Great White Brother. If you are traveled you will probably see New England or Carolina or Kansas or California in these folk, whose hearts are quickened in anticipation. Suddenly—the great door opens, just a little. A thin, wiry man in gray steps into the room and takes his position near the head of the crescent. An aide in undress military uniform stands close to him, two sharp-faced young men stand a little to the left of them and act as a human Scylla and Charybdis through which all must pass. There are no preliminaries—no hint of ceremony. Within five seconds of the time when the President has taken his place, the line begins to move forward. In twenty minutes he has shaken hands with three or four hundred people and the reception is over. But in the brief fraction of a single minute when your hand has grasped that of the President you feel that he knows no one else on earth. He concentrates upon you and that, in itself, is a gift of which any statesman may well be proud. And while you are thinking of the pleasure that his word or
- 63. two of greeting has given you, you awake to find yourself out of the room and hunting for your umbrella at the check-stand in the lower hall. The pleasant personal feeling is with you even after you have left the shelter of the White House roof. It is showering gently and a man under a tree is murmuring something about Secretary Bryan seeing visitors at a quarter to five but neither makes impress upon you. You are merely thinking how much easier it is to come to see the President of the greatest republic in the world than many a lesser man within it—railroad heads, bankers, even petty politicians. In other days it was not as easy to gain admittance to the President, but the tourist who was not above guile could be photographed shaking hands with the great person. A place on that always alluring Pennsylvania avenue did the trick. You stepped in a canvas screen into the place of the enlarged image of a sailor who was once snapped shaking hands with President Taft. When the picture was finished you were where the sailor had been, and you had a post-card that would make the folks back home take notice. True you were a little more prominent in it than the President, but then Mr. Taft was not paying for the picture. In fact Mr. Taft, when he heard of the practice, grew extremely annoyed and had it stopped, so ending abruptly one of the tourist joys of Washington. After the White House, the Capitol is an endless source of delight to those who have come to Washington from afar. A little squad of aged men, who have a wolfish scent for tourists, act as its own particular Reception Committee. These old men, between their cards and the sporting extras of the evening papers, condescend to act as guides to the huge building. We shall spare you the details of a trip through it with them. It is enough to say that they are, in the spirit at least, sight-seeing car lecturers grown into another generation. Their quarrels with the Capitol police are endless. On one memorable occasion, a captain of that really efficient police- force had decided to mark the famous whispering stone in the old Hall of Representatives with a bit of paint. You can read about that whispering stone in any of the tourist-guides which the train-boy
- 64. sells you on your way to Washington. Suffice it now to say that when you have found this phonetic marvel and have stood upon it your whisper will be heard distinctly in a certain far corner of the gallery of the room. It is an acoustic freak of which the schoolboys out in Racine can tell you better than I. And it is one of the prized assets of the Capitol guides. The police captain forgot that when he set out to mark it. It came back to him the evening of that day, however, when the building had been cleared. He chanced to cross the old hall and, looking for his marker, found three of the guides upon their knees carefully restoring it to absolute uniformity with its neighbors. And the captain nearly lost his job. He had sought to interfere with prerogative, and prerogative is a particularly sacred thing at the Federal capital—as we shall see in a little while. * * * * * Late in a pleasant afternoon all Washington seems to walk in F street. The little girls come out of the matinees, the bigger girls drift out from the tea-rooms, there is a swirl of motor vehicles—gasoline and electric—but the tourist knows not of all this. The gay flammeries of Pennsylvania avenue hold him fascinated. Souvenir shops rivet him to their counters. Post-cards—grave, humorous, abominable—urge themselves upon him. But if all these fail—they have post-cards nowadays of the high schools in each of the little Arizona towns—here upon a counter are the little statuettes of pre- digested currency. Mr. Lincoln in $10,000 of greenbacks. And yet that money today could not buy one drop of gasoline, let alone an imported touring automobile, for once it has passed through the government's macerating machine it is only fit for the sculptor. Three thousand dollars go into a Benjamin Harrison hat, fifteen thousand into a model of the Washington Monument that looks as if it were about to melt beneath a summer sun. Twenty thousand doll—stay, there is a
- 65. limit to credulity. And you refuse to buy without a signed certificate from the Treasury Department as to these valuations. Most of the tourists do buy, however. They seem to be blindly credulous—these folk who feel their way to Washington. It was not so very many spring-times ago that a rumor worked afloat of a dull Sabbath to the effect that the Washington Monument was about to fall. That rumor slipped around the town with amazing rapidity— Washington is hardly more than a gossipy, rumor-filled village after all. Two or three thousand folk went down to the Mall to be present at the fall. No two of them could agree as to the direction in which the shaft would tumble and they all made a long and cautious line that completely encircled it—at a safe distance. After long hours of waiting they all went home. Yet no one was angry. They all seemed to think it part of the day's program. * * * * * There is another side of Washington not so funny and tourists, even of the most sedate sort, who stop at the large hotels and who ride about in dignified motor-cars, do not see it. It is the side of heart-burnings. For in no other city of the land is the social code more sharply defined—and regulated. There are many cities in the country and we are telling of them in this book, who draw deep breaths upon exclusiveness. But in none of these save Washington do the folk who do obtain flaunt themselves in the faces of those who do not. The fine old houses of Beacon street, in Boston, and of the Battery down at Charleston may draw themselves apart, but they do it silently and unostentatiously. In the very nature of things in Washington much modesty is quite out of the question.
- 66. The stately dome of our lovely Capitol For here at our Federal capital we have a strange mixture of real democracy and false aristocracy as well as real—if there be any such thing as real aristocracy. The fact that almost every person in the town works, more or less directly, for Uncle Sam makes for the democracy. And that self-same fact seems to fairly establish the aristocracy—you can frankly call much of it snobbishness—of the place. To understand the whys and wherefores of this paradox one would need, himself, to be an employé of the government, of large or small degree. They are many and they are complicated. But an illustration or two will suffice to show what we mean: A rule, which no one nowadays seems very desirous of fathering, but nevertheless a rule of long standing, states that when a department chief enters an elevator in any of the department buildings it must carry him without other stops to his floor. The other passengers in the car must wait the time and the will of the chief, no matter how urgent may be their errands or how short the time at their command. A gradual increase of this silly rule has made it
- 67. include many assistants, sub-chiefs and assistants to sub-chiefs. Only the elevator man knows the rank at which a government employé becomes entitled to this peculiar privilege. But he does know, and woe be to that little stenographer who enters the Department of X—— at just three minutes of nine in the morning, with the expectation of being at her desk with that promptness which the Federal government demands of the folk in its service. The second assistant to a second assistant of a sub-chief of a sub- division may have entered. The little stenographer's desk is upon the third floor; the gentleman whose official title spelled out reaches almost across a sheet of note paper is upon the seventh. There are folk within the crowded elevator-car for the fourth and fifth and sixth floors as well. But they have neither title nor rank and the car shoots to the seventh floor for the benefit of the Mr. Assistant Somebody. If there is another Assistant Somebody there to ride down to the ground floor—and there frequently is—you can imagine the consternation of the clerks. And yet it is part of the system under which they have to work when they work for that most democratic of employers—Uncle Samuel. The secretary of an important department who entered the cabinet with the present administration stayed very late at his office one evening, but found the elevator man awaiting him when he stepped out into the hallway of the deserted building. It was only a short flight of stairs to the street, and the secretary—it was Mr. Bryan—asked the man why he had not gone home. "My orders are to stay here, sir, until the secretary has gone home for the night," was the reply. It is hardly necessary to say that right there was one order in the State department that was immediately revoked, while some twenty thousand clerks and stenographers who form the working staff of official Washington sent up little prayers of thanksgiving. These clerks and stenographers make up the every-day fiber of the town life. They go to work in the morning at nine—for a half-hour
- 68. before that time you can see human streams of them pouring toward the larger departments—and they quit at half past four. The closing hour used to be five, but the clerks decided that they would have a shorter lunch-time and so they moved their afternoon session thirty minutes ahead. Half an hour is a short lunch-time and so official Washington carries its lunch to its desk, more or less cleverly disguised. The owners of popular priced downtown restaurants have long since given up in utter disgust. But official Washington does not care. Official Washington ends its day at half-past four and official Washington is such a power that matinées, afternoon lectures and concerts of any popular sort are rarely planned to begin before that hour. And on the hot summer afternoons of the Federal capital the wisdom of such early closing is hardly to be doubted. On such afternoons, matinée or concert, a cup of tea or a walk along the shop windows of F street are all forgotten. For beyond the heat of the city, within easy reach by its really wonderful transportation system, are playgrounds of infinite variety and joy. True it is that the really fine parts of Rock Creek Park are rather rigidly held for those folk who can afford to ride in motor cars, but there is the river, innumerable picnic-grounds in every direction, fine bathing at Chesapeake beach, not far distant—and the canal. Of all these the old Chesapeake and Ohio canal is by far the most distinctive. And how the Washington folk do love that old waterway! What fun they do have out of it with their motor boats and their canoes. If that old water-highway, almost losing its path in the stretches of thick wood and undergrowth, had been created as a plaything for the capital city, it could hardly have been better devised. The motor boats and the canoes set forth from Georgetown —on holidays and Sundays in great droves. They go all the way up to Great Falls—and even beyond—working their passage through the old locks, exchanging repartee with the lock-tenders, loafing under the shadows of the trees, drinking in the indolence of the summer days.
- 69. * * * * * But Shafer's Lock or Cabin John's Bridge is not the Chevy Chase Club and official Washington knows that. It reads in the daily papers of that other life, of the folk who wear white flannels and dawdle around great porches all day long; hears rumors brought, Lord knows how, from the gossipy Metropolitan Club; almost touches shoulders with its smart breakfasts and lunches and dinners when it comes in and out of the confectioners' and the big hotels. But it is none the less apart, hopelessly and irrevocably apart. Uncle Sam may take the office folk of his capital and give them the assurance of a livelihood through long years, but that is all. He gives them no chance to step out of the comfortable rut into which they have been placed. The good positions, the positions that mean rank and title and entrance to the hallowed places, rarely come through promotions. They are the gifts of fortune, gifts even to strange folk from Cleveland or Madison or Stockton. They are not the reward of faithful service at an unknown desk. And so official Washington, as we have seen here, is quite helpless. The other official Washington—the official Washington of the society columns—little cares. It is not above noticing the twenty thousand, but it is mere notice and nothing more. And as for interest or graciousness or kind-heartedness—they are quite out of the question. Washington is being rebuilt, in both its physical and its social structure. The architects of its social structure are not less capable than those folk who are working out marvels in steel and marble. These first see the Washington of tomorrow, modeled closely after the structures of European capitals. Already our newly created class of American idle rich is establishing its habitat along the lovely streets of our handsomest town. That is a beginning. In some of the departments they have begun to serve tea at four of an afternoon—just as they do on the terrace of the House of Commons. That is another beginning. We are starting.
- 70. The structure of European capitals is largely built upon class distinctions. Washington is being builded close to its models. For ourselves, we prefer the touch of Europe as the architects work them in steel and in marble. A man who has been to Washington and who has not returned within the decade will be astonished to see the change already worked in its appearance. From the moment he steps across the threshold of the fine new station—itself a revelation after the old-time railroad terminals of the town—he will see transformation. Washington is still in growth. They are tearing down the ugly buildings and building upon their sites the beautiful, weaving in the almost gentle creations of the modern architects, a new city which after a little time will cease to be modeled upon Europe but which will serve, in itself, as a model capital for the entire world to follow.
- 71. 7 THE CITY OF THE SEVEN HILLS You can compare Richmond with Rome if you will, with an allusion upon the side to her seven hills; but, if you have even a remote desire for originality, you will not. Rather compare the old southern capital with a bit of rare lace or a stout bit of mahogany. Of the two we would prefer the mahogany, for Richmond is substantial, rather than diaphanous. And like some of the fine old tables in the dining-rooms of her great houses she has taken some hard knocks and in the long run come out of them rather well. She is scarred, but still beautiful. And she wears her scars, visible and invisible, both bravely and well. But if a man come down from the North with any idea of the histories of that war, which is now fifty years old and almost ready to be forgotten, too sharply in his memory, and so imagines that he is to see a Richmond of 1865, with grass growing in the streets, ruins everywhere, mules and negroes in the streets, he is doomed to an awakening. There are still plenty of mules and negroes in the streets and probably will be until the end of time, but the Richmond of today boasts miles and miles of as fine modern smooth pavements as his motor car might ever wish to find. And as for ruins, bless you, Richmond has begun to tear down some of the buildings which she built after the war so as to get building-sites for her newest skyscrapers.
- 72. Do not forget that there is a new spirit abroad in the South—and Virginia, in many ways the most poetic and dramatic of all our states, has not lagged in it. There are Boards of Trade at Roanoke and Lynchburg that are not averse to sounding the praises of those lively manufacturing towns of the up-country, and as for Norfolk—let any Norfolk man get hold of you and in two hours he will have almost convinced you that his town is going to be the greatest seaport along the North Atlantic—and that within two decades, sir. But this chapter is not written of Roanoke or Lynchburg or Norfolk. This is Richmond's chapter and in it to be writ the fact that the capital of Virginia has not lagged in enterprise or progress behind any of the other cities of the state. In the transformation she has sacrificed few of her landmarks, none of that delightful personality that makes itself apparent to those who tarry for a little time within her gates. That makes it all the better. It is the spirit of the new South that is not only bringing such wonderful towns as Birmingham, to make a single instance, to the front, but is working the transformation of such staunch old settlements as Memphis or Atlanta—or Richmond. Not that Richmond is willing to forget the past. There is something about the Virginia spirit that seems incapable of death. There is something about the Virginian's loyalty to his native state, his blindness to her imperfections, almost every one of them the result of decades of civic poverty, that cannot escape the most calloused commercial soul that ever walked out of North or South. And there is something about this bringing up of spirit and of loyalty with the spirit of the new America that makes a combination well-nigh irresistible. Here, then, is the new South. The generation that liked to discuss the detail of Pickett's charge and the horrors of those days in the Wilderness is gone. The new generations are rather bored with such detail. The new generations are not less spirited, not less loyal than the old. But they are new. That, of itself, almost explains the difference. Now see it in a little closer light.
- 73. Volumes have been written of the loyalty of the old South. Richmond herself today presents more volumes, although unwritten, of that loyalty. You can read it in her streets, in her fine old square houses, in that stately building atop of Schokoe hill, which generations have known as the Capitol and which was for a little time the seat of government of a new nation. Within that Capitol stands a statue. It is the marble effigy of a great Virginian, who was, himself, the first head of a new government. The guide-books call it the Houdini statue of Washington, and keen critics have long since asserted that it is not only the finest statue in the United States but one of the most notable art works of the world. It was known as such in France at the time of the Civil War. And hardly had that very dark page in our history been turned before the Louvre made overtures to Virginia for the purchase of the Houdini statue. The matter of price was not definitely fixed. France, in the spendthrift glories of the Second Empire, was willing to pay high for a new toy for her great gallery. Poor Virginia! She was hard pressed those days for the necessities of life, to say nothing of its ordinary comforts. Her pockets were empty. She was bankrupt. Her mouth must have watered a bit at thought of those hundreds of thousands of French francs. But she stood firm, and if you know Virginia at all, you will say "of course she stood firm." A Southern gentleman would almost repudiate his financial obligations before he would sell one of the choice possessions of his families. There are great plantation houses still standing in the Old Dominion, which were spared the torch of war by the mercy of God, and whose walls hold aloft the handiwork of the finest painters of England, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; rare portraits of the masters and mistresses of those old houses. In them, too, are furniture and silver whose real value is hardly to be computed, not even by the screw of a dealer in antiques. The folk in these old houses may be poor—if they come of the oldest Virginia stock they very likely are. They stand bravely, though, to the traditions of their hospitality, even though they wonder if the bacon is going to last and if it is safe for the brood to
- 74. kill another chicken. But they would close their kitchen and live on berries and on herbs before they would part with even the humblest piece of silver or of furniture; while if a dealer should come down from Washington or New York and make an offer, no matter how generous, for one of the paintings, he would probably be put off the place. Family means much to these Virginians. If you do not believe this go to Richmond, stop in one of its fine houses and make your host take you to one of the dances for which the city is famed. Almost any dance will do and from the beginning you will be charmed. The minor appointments will approach perfection, and you will find the men and women of the city worthy of its best traditions. Some places may disappoint in their well-advertised charm but the girls of Richmond never disappoint. Here is one of them. She gets you in a quiet corner of the place, meets a friend over there, and a conversation somewhat after this fashion gets under way: "Miss Rhett, allow me to introduce my friend, Mr. Blinkins, of New York." You bow low and ask Miss Rhett if by any chance she is related to the Rhetts of Charleston. "Only distantly. My people are all Virginians. The Charleston Rhetts are quite another branch. My grandfather's brother married a Miss Morris, from Savannah and the Charleston Rhetts all come from them. If my papa were only here he would explain." You say that you understand and murmur something about having met a Richard Henry Rhett at the old Colonial town of Williamsburgh a few years ago when you were down for the Jamestown exposition. "He was a Petersburgh Rhett," the young lady explains, "son of a cousin of my father. He married Miss Virginia Tredegar last year."
- 75. You remember hearing of a Miss Virginia Tredegar of Roanoke, and you slip out that fact. But this is Miss Virginia Tredegar of Weldon and a cousin of Miss Virginia Tredegar of Roanoke. Miss Virginia Tredegar of Weldon—now Mrs. Richard Henry Rhett, of course, is a delightful girl. The young lady who has you in the corner assures you that—and she, herself, is not lacking in charms. Mrs. Rhett was a sponsor for the state for several years, and you vaguely wonder just what that may mean as you have visions of large floats lumbering along in street parades, with really lovely girls in white standing upon them. And you also have visions of the Miss Virginia Tredegar, of Weldon, sitting in the other days upon the door-steps of an old red and white Colonial house, which faces a hot little open square, visions of her accomplishments and her beauty; of her ability to ride the roughest horse in the county, to dance seven hours without seeming fatigue, of the jealous beaux who come flocking to her feet. You find yourself idly speaking of these visions to your companion. She laughs. "I've just the right girl for you," she says, "and she is here in this ball-room. She is all these things—and some more; the rightest, smartest girl in all our state—Miss Virginia Bauregard, daughter of Mr. Calhoun Bauregard, of Belle Manor in King and Queen county." Apparently they are all named Virginia in Richmond, seemingly three-quarters of these girls who live in the nicer parts of the town are thus to bespeak through their lives the affectionate loyalty of their parents to the Old Dominion. All these folk come quite easily to the transformation that has come over the South within the decade, since she ceased to grieve over a past that could never be brought back and overcome. The young boys and the young girls turn readily from fine horses to fine motor cars, the coming of imported customs causes few shocks, it is even rumored that the newest of the new dances have invaded the sober drawing-rooms of the place. But the New South is kind to Richmond. She does not seek to eliminate the Old South. And so the
- 76. old customs and the old traditions run side by side with the new. And even the old families seem to soften and many times to welcome the new. * * * * * If you wish to see the real Old South in Richmond go out to Hollywood cemetery, which is perhaps the greatest of all its landmarks. It is easy of access, very beautiful, although not in the elaborate and immaculate fashion of Greenwood, at Brooklyn, or Mount Auburn, just outside of Boston. But where man has fallen short at Hollywood, Nature has more than done her part. She rounded the lovely hills upon which Richmond might place the treasure-chest of her memories, and then she swept the finest of all Virginia rivers—the James—by those hills. Man did the rest. It was man who created the roadways and who placed the monuments. And not the least interesting of these is the strange tomb of President James Monroe, an imposing bronze structure, in these days reminding one of an enlarged bird-cage. It is interesting perhaps because nearby there is another grave—the grave of still another man who came to the highest office of the American people. The second grave is marked by a small headstone, scarcely large enough to accommodate its two words: "John Tyler." But more interesting than these older monuments is the group that stands alone, at the far corner of the cemetery and atop of one of those little hillocks close beside the river. The head of that family is buried beneath his effigy. It is the grave of Jefferson Davis, who stands facing the city, as if he still dreamed of the days that might have been but never were. And close beside is the grave of his little girl, "The Daughter of Confederacy." When she died, only a few years since, the South felt that the last of the living links that tied it with the days when men fought and died for the Lost Cause had been severed. It was then that it set to work to build the new out of the old.
- 77. Nowadays the Old South does not come publicly into the streets of Richmond—save on that memorable occasion in the spring of 1907 when a feeble trail of aging men—all that remained of a great gray army—limped down a triumphant path through the heart of the town. The Old South sits in her dead cities, and perhaps that is the reason why the Southerner so quickly takes the stranger within his gates to the cemetery. It is his apologies for thirty or forty years lost in the march of progress. And it is an apology that no man of breadth or generosity can refuse to accept. * * * * * Here, then, is the new Richmond, riding stoutly upon her great hills and shooting the tendrils of her growth in every direction. For she is growing, rapidly and handsomely. Her new buildings—her wonderful cathedral, her superb modern hotels, the fine homes multiplying out by the Lee statue—what self-respecting southern town does not have a Lee statue—all bespeak the quality of her growth. But her new buildings cannot easily surpass the old. It was rare good judgment in an American town for her to refrain from tearing down or even "modernizing" that Greek temple that stands atop of Schokoe hill and which generations have known as the Capitol. The two flanking wings which were made absolutely necessary by the awakening of the Old Dominion have not robbed the older portion of the building of one whit of its charm. It typifies the Old South and the New South, come to stand beside one another. In other days Virginia was proud of her capital, it was with no small pride that she thrust it ahead when a seat of government was to be chosen for the Confederacy, that for a little time she saw it take its stormy place among the nations of the world. In these days Virginia may still be proud of her capital town— it is still a seat of government quite worthy of a state of pride and of traditions.
- 79. 8 WHERE ROMANCE AND COURTESY DO NOT FORGET "You are not going to write your book and leave out Charleston?" said the Man who Makes Magazines. We hesitated at acknowledging the truth. In some way or other Charleston had escaped us upon our travels. The Magazine Maker read our answer before we could gain strength to make it. "Well, you can't afford to miss that town," he said conclusively. "It's great stuff." "Great stuff?" we ventured. "If you are looking into the personality of American cities you must include Charleston. She has more personality than any of the other old Colonial towns—save Boston. She's personality personified, old age glorified, charm and sweetness magnified—the flavor of the past hangs in every one of her old houses and her narrow streets. You cannot pass by Charleston." After that we went over to a railroad ticket office in Fifth avenue and purchased a round-trip ticket to the metropolis of South Carolina. And a week later we were on a southbound train, running like mad across the Jersey meadows. Five days in Charleston! It seemed almost sacrilege. Five miserable days in the town which the
- 80. Maker of Magazines averred fairly oozed personality. But five days were better than no days at all—and Charleston must be included in this book. The greater part of one day—crossing New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the up-stretched head of little Delaware, Maryland—finally the Old Dominion and the real South. A day spent behind the glass of the car window—the brisk and busy Jersey towns, the Delaware easily crossed; Philadelphia, with her great outspreading of suburbs; Wilmington; a short cut through the basements of Baltimore; the afternoon light dying on the superb dome of the Washington Capitol —after that the Potomac. Then a few evening hours through Virginia, the southern accent growing more pronounced, the very air softer, the negroes more prevalent, the porter of our car continually more deferential, more polite. After that a few hours of oblivion, even in the clattering Pullman which, after the fashion of all these tremendously safe new steel cars, was a bit chilly and a bit noisy. In the morning a low and unkempt land, the railroad trestling its way over morass and swamp and bayou on long timber structures and many times threading sluggish yellow southern rivers by larger bridges. Between these a sandy mainland—thick forests of pine with increasing numbers of live-oaks holding soft moss aloft—at last the outskirts of a town. Other folk might gather their luggage together, the vision of a distant place with its white spires, the soft gray fog that tells of the proximity of the open sea blowing in upon them, held us at the window pane. A river showed itself in the distance to the one side of the train, with mast-heads dominating its shores; another, lined with factories stretched upon the other side. After these, the streets of the town, a trolley car stalled impatient to let our train pass—low streets and mean streets of an unmistakable negro quarter, the broad shed of a sizable railroad station showing at the right. "Charleston, sah," said the porter. Remember now that he had been a haughty creature in New York and Philadelphia, ebon dignity
- 81. in Baltimore and in Washington. Now he was docility itself, a courtesy hardly to be measured by the mere expectation of gratuity. The first glimpse of Charleston a rough paved street—our hotel 'bus finding itself with almost dangerous celerity in front of trolley cars. That unimportant way led into another broad highway of the town and seemingly entitled to distinction. "Meeting street," said our driver. "And I can tell you that Charleston is right proud of it, sir," he added. Charleston has good cause to be proud of its main highway, with the lovely old houses along it rising out of blooming gardens, like fine ladies from their ball gowns; at its upper end the big open square and the adjacent Citadel—pouring out its gray-uniformed boys to drill just as their daddies and their grand-daddies drilled there before them—the charms of St. Michael's, and the never-to- be-forgotten Battery at the foot of the street. We sped down it and drew up at a snow-white hotel which in its immaculate coat might have sprung up yesterday, were it not for the stately row of great pillars, three stories in height, with which it faced the street. They do not build hotels that way nowadays— more's the pity. For when the Charleston Hotel was builded it entered a distinguished brotherhood—the Tremont in Boston, the Astor and the St. Nicholas in New York, Willard's in Washington, the Monongahela at Pittsburgh, and the St. Charles in New Orleans were among its contemporaries. It was worthy to be ranked with the best of these—a hotel at which the great planters of the Carolinas and of Georgia could feel that the best had been created for them within the very heart of their favorite city. We pushed our way into the heart of the generous office of the hotel, thronged with the folk who had crowded into Charleston— followers of the races, just then holding sway upon the outskirts of the town, tourists from the North, Carolinans who will never lose the
- 82. habit of going to Charleston as long as Charleston exists. In due time a brisk and bustling hotel clerk—he was an importation, plainly, none of your courteous, ease-taking Southerners—had placed us in a room big enough for the holding of a reception. From the shutters of the room we could look down into Meeting street—into the charred remnants of a store that had been burned long before and the débris never removed. When we threw up the window sash we could thrust our heads out and see, a little way down the street, the most distinctive and the most revered of all Charleston's landmarks —the belfried spire of St. Michael's. As we leaned from that window the bells of St. Michael's spoke the quarter-hour, just as they have been speaking quarter-hours close upon a century and a half. We had been given the first taste of the potent charm of a most distinctive southern town.
- 83. * * * * * "... The most appealing, the most lovely, the most wistful town in America; whose visible sadness and distinction seem almost to speak audibly, speak in the sound of the quiet waves that ripple round her southern front, speak in the church-bells on Sunday morning and breathe not only in the soft salt air, but in the perfume of every gentle, old-fashioned rose that blooms behind the high garden walls of falling mellow-tinted plaster; King's Port the retrospective, King's Port the belated, who from her pensive porticoes looks over her two rivers to the marshes and the trees beyond, the live-oaks veiled in gray moss, brooding with memories. Were she my city how I should love her...." So wrote Owen Wister of the city that he came to know so well. You can read Charleston in Lady Baltimore each time he speaks of "King's Port" and read correctly. For it was in Charleston he spun his romance of the last stronghold of old manners, old families, old traditions and old affections. In no other city of the land might he have laid such a story. For no other city of the land bears the memory of tragedy so plaintively, so uncomplainingly as the old town that occupies the flat peninsula between the Cooper and the Ashley rivers at the very gateway of South Carolina. Like a scarred man, Charleston will bear the visible traces of her great disaster until the end of her days. And each of them, like the scars of Richmond, makes her but the more potent in her charm. Up one street and down another—fascinating pathways, every blessed one of them. Meeting and King and Queen and Legare and Calhoun and Tradd—with their high, narrow-ended houses rising right from the sidewalks and stretching, with their generous spirit of hospitality, inward, beside gardens that blossom as only a southern garden can bloom—with jessamine and narcissus and oleander and japonica. Galleries give to these fragrant gardens. Only Charleston, unique among her sisters of the Southland, does not call them
- 84. galleries. She calls them piazzas, with the accent strong upon the "pi." The gardens themselves are more than a little English, speaking clearly something of the old-time English spirit of the town, which has its most visible other expression in the stolid Georgian architecture of its older public buildings and churches. And some of the older folk, defying the Charleston convention of four o'clock dinner, will take tea in the softness of the late afternoon. Local tradition still relates how, in other days, a certain distinguished and elderly citizen, possessing neither garden nor gallery with his house, was wont to have a table and chair placed upon the sidewalk and there take his tea of a late afternoon. And the Charleston of that other day walked upon the far side of the street rather than disturb the gentleman! Nor is all that spirit quite gone in the Charleston of today. The older negroes will touch their hats, if not remove them, when you glance at them. They will step into the gutter when you pass them upon the narrow sidewalks of the narrow streets. They came of a generation that made more than the small distinction of separate schools and separate places in the railroad cars between white and black. But they are rapidly disappearing from the streets of the old city. Those younger negroes who drive the clumsy two-wheeled carts in town and out over the rough-paved streets have learned no good manners. And when the burly negresses who amble up the sidewalks balancing huge trays of crabs or fresh fruits or baked stuffs smile at you, theirs is the smile of insolence. Fifty years of the Fifteenth Amendment have done their work—any older resident of Charleston will tell you that, and thank God for the inborn courtesy that keeps him from profanity with the telling. But if oncoming years have worked great changes in the manner of the race which continues to be of numerical importance in the seaport city, it will take more than one or two or three or even four generations to work great changes in the manners of the well-born
- 85. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com