Greetings from the Open Source Software Lab - Port 25: The Open Source Community at Microsoft
< Back to Blogs
Greetings from the Open Source Software Lab by Paula Bach on June 12, 2007 07:46PM

Bryan has previously blogged about the project partnership between the Penn State University (PSU) College of Information Sciences and Technology (IST) and the Open Source Software Lab (OSSL). I am at the OSSL here at Microsoft this summer and next as a research intern. The project, which started in May 2007 and will last two years, is my dissertation research. I work with Jack Carroll in the Center for HCI at Penn State. I am a third year PhD candidate and I study HCI in open source software development.

In this blog I want to talk about interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity. Broadly speaking, the information society is like the Wild West and many challenges as well as opportunities, especially with information technologies, have arisen. So for example, the Internet is like the Wild West of the information society. Challenges and opportunities in a new frontier are exciting for business and academia at once. Understanding the challenges and opportunities, however, needs new ways of investigating. A single discipline can address some of the challenges and opportunities, but complex problems, especially ones involving the intersection of information, people, and technology can benefit from expertise from multiple approaches. This is where a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary approach can be helpful. Rogers et al (http://rizzo.media.unisi.it/page2/assets/Rogers_Scaife_Rizzo.pdf) make the distinction between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary:

Interdisciplinary usually means “the emergence of insight and understanding of a problem domain through the integration or derivation of different concepts, methods, and epistemologies from different disciplines in a novel way.” Multidisciplinary can be characterized as “a group of researchers from different disciplines cooperate by working together on the same problem towards a common goal, but continue to do so using theories, tools, and methods from their own discipline, and occasionally using the output from each other’s work.” The characterizations differ in whether elements of a discipline are coupled or decoupled.

 

Although both terms have been used interchangeably, the subtle differences in problem solving depend both on the kind of problem a team of collaborators is solving and on the investigatory skills of the team members. The OSSL takes both approaches to both the challenges and opportunities inherent in understanding the open source and where Microsoft fits in. This broad approach is inherent when comparing Microsoft’s past and current missions: A computer on every desktop and in every home running Microsoft software compared to To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential. The missions shifted from technology-centric to people and organization-centric. This new approach includes a global perspective on key aspects of the information society: people, information, and technology. This new approach is also exemplified by a new type of academic unit called information schools, or iSchools. The joint project, looking at HCI in open source software development, is interesting from a number of perspectives in the space of information, technology, and people. My approach is interdisciplinary, taking a number of concepts and methodologies and combining them in using different epistemological perspectives. Please contact me if you would like details on the interdisciplinary nature of the study of HCI expertise in open source software development—it would be too long to expound on here.

Bryan and I recently went to the iSchool at University of Washington to talk to graduate students and faculty about the project. The research conversation, as it is called, was well attended especially for a sunny Friday afternoon at the end of the spring semester. (The iSchool dean even showed up!) We talked about the challenges of studying the open source community and about doing interdisciplinary research in an iSchool.

The most interesting aspect of my experience so far as part of this joint partnership is that I am doing interdisciplinary academic work in a business unit studying open source software development at Microsoft – all of which are normally ”separate worlds” (academic/business and Microsoft/open source software). My summer here will entail collecting data and analyzing results of HCI expertise in open source software development as well as looking at HCI expertise in software development internally at Microsoft as a basis for comparison. In this summer series, look for my blog entries as I ponder results from the studies.

Comments RSS
  1. communist said:

    Doesnt a PhD usually last 3-3.5 years and if this is already your 2nd year and this project will last 2 years - will this make your PhD a little longer than usual? ;)

    posted at 03:42PM 06/13/2007
  2. communist:

    I have seen PhD's take four or five years, if not longer.  One of my friends got his PhD over 11 years, but his thesis was a killer.

    This brings up an interesting problem for PhD students in Technology though.  Given the rapid change of things, how can you study something that changes every six months.  This is why I will never go beyond my MBA.  I'd rather stick with OJT...much more practical (unless you want to teach).

    posted at 08:40AM 06/15/2007
  3. einhverfr said:

    Out of curiosity, where does information and communication theory fit into HCI?  It seems to me that having direct applications of cybernetics (information science, not necessariloy related to information technology) would be necessary, yet every description of HCI seems to suggest that this is not a major part of the field.

    .

    Hopefully I have just been looking at bad sources.  I would think that interface design issues are generally best looked at through a mathematics and information sciences perspective.  Am I wrong?

    posted at 09:41PM 06/15/2007
  4. liquidat said:

    I'm really missing a "submit a question" form here at Port25 - how can you be dedicated to communicate with things like "the community" when there is no way at all to submit anything?

    (And no, the community is not dead. I read quite some interviews and posts done by Bill and they all were nice to read - but the one about "community is dead" was the worst piece of text I ever read. It simply does not fit to the other interviews... who wrote that stuff for him?)

    Anyway, since you have no submission form this post unfortunately does not deal with your research but with a total different topic:

    I would like to know how the members of Port25 would try to explain the <a href="http://www.linpro.no/en/nyheter_og_events/2007/linpro_vant_frem_mot_microsoft">Norway story</a>. Seriously, that is the old Microsoft: a aggressive monopolist which does not even stop at introducing illegal/criminal terms of use.

    How should anyone coming from the "other side" (meaning Linux community or simply other software vendors) should build up trust? Trust is a very important thing in the business, but with such terms of use I can hardly believe anything Microsoft says about "interoperability" - please, give me a reason to trust MS, because atm there is simply no reason besides hope!

    posted at 07:58AM 06/17/2007
  5. The "allotted" time for a PhD is 4 years. However some people may finish in 3 year and while others take much longer. Factors that weigh into the time it takes include (but not limited to)funding and scope of the project.

    posted at 01:04PM 06/18/2007
  6. I have heard of PhD students taking up to 11 years as well. I don't think how rapidly technology changes weighs too heavily on time to completion because research done for a PhD is usually some very small piece of a larger issue so even if the larger issue becomes larger because of new innovations, then the liklihood of the smaller issue being impacted is small. Although I bet it does happen in some cases where somebody solves a problem in the next release of a software product for example.

    posted at 01:11PM 06/18/2007
  7. I like your statement in the title, that HCI is an incomplete field. It makes me think about the question, How would we know if HCI as a field was complete? How do we know if any field is complete? HCI is both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary and because it borrows from other fields, it may never be complete, but that's not neccesarily bad.

    I am not too familiar with cybernetics. I have studied Shannon's information theory, but for HCI, the channels, even though they are human communication channels, are not always helpful at the level at which humans interact with computers. Human behavior is difficult to formalize as any social scientist will agree. HCI has a range of theories that encompass many levels of analysis from perception to group behavior. For a good overview of HCI models and theories see http://www.amazon.com/HCI-Models-Theories-Frameworks-Multidisciplinary/dp/1558608087.

    I am not sure how cybernetics would fit into interface design. Again, it depends on the level of analysis. If cybernetics operates at a neurological level, then it will be useful for neuro interfaces, and the HCI community has not explored this area too much because such research would be better suited in artificial intelligence or cybernetics communities. Cybernetics society: http://www.ieee-smc.org/

    This is an interesting topic, thanks. I found this from a few years ago: A talk given at Stanford about HCI and cybernetics at http://hci.stanford.edu/cs547/abstracts/01-02/020215-pangaro.html

    posted at 01:39PM 06/18/2007
  8. einhverfr said:

    @Paula;

    .

    Thanks for your insightful reply.  Let me say why I think that cybernetics has a great role to play in HCI.

    .

    Every interaction between a computer component and a user or another component can be reduced to an exchange of information.  This exchange is usually two-way but is shaped by the nature of the interface.  Understanding how this breaks down (particularly including the density of the information travelling each direction) is, IMHO, one key to the choice of interaction styles.

    .

    For example, imagine I am downloading some files via FTP.  Suppose I want to download the files to my floppy disk, I want to rename them so that the names don't conflict, and I am running Windows.

    .

    From the command-line, I can type:

    ftp> get mboxfile a:\mail\June\2007.txt

    .

    If I want to do that through a GUI tool, it is far more difficult.  The reason is that while the GUI tool is providing more dense information to me as a user (which may be helpful in getting a newbie to successfully use the software), the command interface is far less dense-- mouse clicks are less dense than keystrokes.  In short, there are fundamental information tradeoffs in interface style.

    .

    Of course, we all get to hear from GUI or CLI zealots who think their way is the *only* way, but consider this: if you want to go to a web site that uses graphics to convey information (pie charts, for example), a GUI web browser is the right tool for the job precisely because it is better at conveying rich information to the user than it is at receiving complex commands.  On the other hand, for system administration, nothing beats a CLI precisely because it is better at receiving complex instructions from the administrator than it is at displaying rich information to the user.

    .

    Obviously it is possible to have a hybrid style where a command-line drives a GUI app.  Many older X apps worked via this style.

    .

    I think that understanding this tradeoff is key not only to choosing which interaction style to use but also to make the most of what one chooses.

    .

    Sure, psychology comes into play in terms of ensuring that the information displayed to a user is comprehensible and that the command language is something that can be committed easily to memory.  But the core of the interaction remains information-based.

    .

    I mostly mention this because, like many others, I find many trends in interface design to be dubious, and many definitions of "user-friendliness" to be useless.  Granted few if any of these come from HCI professionals, but they still constitute a great frustration.onals, but they still constitute a great frustration.

    posted at 09:02PM 06/19/2007
  9. einhverfr said:

    That lecture of cybernetics and HCI was quite interesting.  Thanks for the link.

    posted at 01:07PM 06/20/2007
  10. jcannon said:

    @liquidat - The submission form is at the bottom of the home page for any questions you have.

    posted at 04:29PM 06/20/2007
Post a Comment
*
*