Cultural Influences in Computing Technologies?

Jose Rojas asks: "I'd like to request the help of the international Slashdot community to help me address the following issues. I'm starting my PhD in computing science and I'm interested in understanding how computing technologies are shaped by the cultural environment where they are originally created. It is my hypothesis that computing technologies we use today are the result of an initial idea that essentially defines how a technology (i.e., a software application) will be used afterwards. Being the product of an initial idea, this technology is the tangible outcome of the mind of its creator. While I recognize that a prototype is subsequently shaped by social, commercial, cultural, and other various forces that popularize it, my position is that the computing technologies we use today are, essentially, the embodiment of the particular idiosyncrasies (beliefs, ideals, goals, or aims) of their original creators. Furthermore, since the personal computer and other computing technologies are said to be the product of the Western world, it is quite reasonable to suppose that computing technologies embody a Western view of the world, that is, Western ideals as to why they exist, what are their purposes, and what problems (if any) are they supposed to solve, but what are those philosophies, ideals, and purposes of computing technologies embodied in Western-produced computing technology?" "As computing technologies continue penetrating all over the world, and as other countries are empowered to develop native computing technologies, do computing technologies developed in non-Western countries originate from and embody essentially different philosophies, ideals, and overall purposes of technology? Do they address different needs? What are some examples of these computing technologies that originate from different needs, ideals, philosophies, and/or cultural environments? Are the characteristics of non-Western computing technologies transferable, or are they intrinsically bounded to the originating culture? Are there any lessons to learn from non-Western views of technology? And finally, are computing technologies developed in non-Western countries limited by the "Western" nature of the computer?

I will welcome any opinion, suggestion, advice, link, and any other resource the Slashdot community can point me to. Please, feel free to contribute and engage in this discussion."

Comments

Culture?

[Ajehals]

I assume that you are looking at this from a national / regional culture perspective, and that may be valid in some areas but I would assume the largest impact (well the largest 'cultural' impact at least) would not come from that area at all.

I have over time worked with a few programmers from a diverse range of national cultures and I have found that the only cultural impact that is discernible is the corporate or technological culture. That is to say that project management and technical approaches (using the latest tech or sticking to established and stable tech etc..) had an impact, whilst the individual team members backgrounds had little effect.

I think what you need to do is look at 3 - 5 applications that are not aimed at a corporate end user (to remove prevalent the corporate culture as an factor), and that have been written by different people / groups in different countries, and then try to identify where they came from. I am willing to bet that you will be unable to do so.

I would go further and say that if you look at open source projects developed around the world that the methods used in developing the code would not be largely different. Open Source would provide hopefully give you more insight as you should have access to the code and also be able to see what processes are being followed to create and update that code, as well as having a good idea of what the aims of the projects are and also what the impetus behind its inception were. Although I am sure the project and management methodologies will have been different, I would suggest that they would not differ based on a national or regional culture.

Technology is a global phenomenon, and the aims and objectives of corporations and even of individuals tend to be similar, moreover certain practices have been developed that just work, sure some were more prevalent in some societies in the past but now, as people have become more aware of what works, there has been a large amount of crossover, and the cultural element is largely gone.

Of course if you compare Open Source and Closed Source projects you will see in many cases a major divergence in methodology, but that will be because of the cultures inherent in those communities. To look at culture and its impact on IT, I would suggest you need to rapidly redefine what you mean by culture.

To put it bluntly, programming is not an art form, it is damn close at times, but it is not subject to as much interpritation as other areas. Whilst software is created with the aims of a creator in mind, and that creator will be in some ways influenced by his local culture when formulating his aims, I doubt that those aims would be unique, and If someone else from a different culture addressed the same aims I believe that the approach and end result would be very similar.

Lastly I should add that whilst I have tried to address in broad terms some of what you mention, I believe that this whole area is secondary to so many other factors that it is almost a non existent element, But that is just my experience, and is likely not to be representative of the industry as a whole.

Everything

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Computers are filled with nothing less than cultural influence

- every RTS is showing us we can win irak (and we can obviously, it will take time, lots of time, but we can)
- every sim is showing us that capitalism works (and it does, obviously :-p)
- every game contains the christian mantra that every story ends well (which is, unfortunately, not true, although we try)
- the whole concept of a PC is obviously a testament to individuality, which is the basis of capitalism (and one of its limits, as evidenced by the nobel prize economics 3 years ago)
- the internet itself is a very democratic concept (everyone an ip, one-to-one communication, empowerment of the individual, ...)
- linux itself (it may be free, but it was implemented as a cost-reduction strategy)
- slashdot (which tries to have a "democratic" rating system) ...

Re:Genes

[morleron]

An interesting observation. However, I think that an even stronger influence on the design, as opposed to use, of computers and other digital technologies is that of mathematics. After all, math is the driving force behind the design of the various digital beasties that now affect our lives. Thus, they all operate according to a well-understood set of logic and math rules. The actual packaging of the devices is driven by sales, marketing, and, to a degree, engineering considerations - which are the parts of the process that are affected by culture per se.

How the device is actually used is driven by culture. I think that's one of the reasons that Americans, in general, are quick to pick up the latest in "easy to use" tech and that's one of the reasons for MS's dominance in the computer field. Bill Gates and company have sold their products as being "easy to use" and they have done a good job of making good on that claim - it's unfortunate that the underlying OS is such a piece of schlock, but that's another discussion. I'm not an MS fan, but the company has done more to popularize the use of computers for all sorts of tasks - to the point that it has an apparently unshakeable hold on the mind of the average computer user - than the rest of the industry did over the thirty or so years prior to the introduction of Windows 3. Most PC users at that time (and since) didn't have to deal with the underlying complexity of the technology as, since they were generally using the machines at work, they had geeks like us to set the things up and fix them when they went south. As time has gone on MS has made Windows easier to use at the expense of removing access to much of the underlying power of the machine - which is why so many of us here on /. despise them so.

MS isn't the only company to sell their products based on the "easy to use" mantra. Other examples are provided by Apple - a one-button mouse must be easier to use than the multi-button devices from other companies; HP, their first touch-screen PCs were a marvel though the technology itself wasn't robust enough for use in business and/or shop-floor settings; and IBM - the original PC was, in spite of its many shortcomings, much easier to use than the mainframes the company made most of its money on. Camera phones provide another example, they're easier to use than their full-size digital camera cousins - just pull open the phone, point it at what you want the picture of, push a button to take the picture, push another button to send the picture to whomever you want - how mush simpler can it get?

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. "Easy" is always quicker to sell than "hard and requires learning before you become proficient", at least here in America.

Just my $.02,
Ron