Short answer
Designers must acknowledge that digital 'ownership' is a complex, enacted process influenced by numerous factors, and design should facilitate rather than assume a simple, singular form of possession.
- Field
- Innovation & Design
- Source
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (2015)
- Method
- Qualitative research
- Sample
- 20 participants
- Evidence
- Moderate effect
Understanding consumer relationships with digital items requires moving beyond traditional notions of ownership to consider the dynamic interplay between users, digital objects, and the surrounding technological and contractual infrastructure. This innovation & design research insight is drawn from a 2015 study published in ePrints Soton (University of Southampton). Using Qualitative research with 20 participants, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: Designers must acknowledge that digital 'ownership' is a complex, enacted process influenced by numerous factors, and design should facilitate rather than assume a simple, singular form of possession.
Digital possessions are enacted, not owned, through complex networks.
Understanding consumer relationships with digital items requires moving beyond traditional notions of ownership to consider the dynamic interplay between users, digital objects, and the surrounding technological and contractual infrastructure.
ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · 2015
Key Findings
- 01Digital consumption objects (DCOs) are transient and multiple, unlike enduring and singular physical objects.
- 02Possession of DCOs is enabled and restricted by a network of human and non-human actants beyond the end consumer.
- 03Fragmented ownership leads to DCOs being enacted as both personal possessions and company assets, creating conflicting ontologies.
Application
Design takeaway
Designers must acknowledge that digital 'ownership' is a complex, enacted process influenced by numerous factors, and design should facilitate rather than assume a simple, singular form of possession.
How to apply
When designing a digital service, map out all the potential human and non-human elements that could influence a user's perception of their 'ownership' and interaction with the service.
Project actions
- 01When researching user interactions with digital products, consider the 'invisible' elements that influence their experience.
- 02Use network diagrams to visualize the relationships between users, digital objects, and other actants.
Method & Evidence
Variables
Strengths & Limitations
Strengths
- +Provides a novel theoretical lens (actor-network theory) for understanding digital possessions.
- +Employs in-depth qualitative methods to capture nuanced user experiences.
Limitations
The sample size is relatively small, and the focus on specific digital items might limit generalizability to all digital possessions.
Reliability & validity
The validity of the findings relies on the depth of the interviews and the researcher's interpretation within the actor-network theory framework. Reliability might be limited due to the subjective nature of qualitative data and the small sample size.
Think critically
To what extent does the concept of 'enacted possession' challenge the fundamental principles of intellectual property law in the digital age?
Design Principles
"Design for enacted possession: Recognize that user relationships with digital items are dynamic and influenced by a network of human and non-human factors."
This perspective is crucial for designers developing digital products and services. It highlights that user experience is not solely determined by the interface but by the entire ecosystem of digital and non-digital elements that shape how users perceive and interact with their digital 'possessions'.
What This Means for Your Design
Think of your digital stuff, like music or apps, not as things you fully own, but as things that are always changing and depend on lots of other things (like the app store, your internet, and the company's rules) to work and for you to feel like you have them.
How to use in your project
- 1.Use this research to justify exploring the 'network' of factors influencing user interaction with your designed digital product.
- 2.Cite this study when discussing the limitations of traditional ownership models in the context of digital design.
Add to My Project
Quick Cite
Paragraph starter
This research highlights that digital possessions are not simply owned but are enacted through complex relationships between consumers, digital objects, and a network of human and non-human actants. This suggests that design for digital products should move beyond assumptions of straightforward ownership and instead consider the dynamic interplay of factors that shape user perception and interaction.
Source
ePrints Soton (University of Southampton)
Digital possessions : theorising relations between consumers and digital consumption objects
journal · 2015
View sourceQuestions About This Research
- What does the research say about digital possessions are enacted, not owned, through complex networks?
- Designers must acknowledge that digital 'ownership' is a complex, enacted process influenced by numerous factors, and design should facilitate rather than assume a simple, singular form of possession. Evidence: ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (2015).
- Why does "Digital possessions are enacted, not owned, through complex networks." matter for design?
- This perspective is crucial for designers developing digital products and services. It highlights that user experience is not solely determined by the interface but by the entire ecosystem of digital and non-digital elements that shape how users perceive and interact with their digital 'possessions'.
- How can designers apply this research?
- Designers must acknowledge that digital 'ownership' is a complex, enacted process influenced by numerous factors, and design should facilitate rather than assume a simple, singular form of possession.
- What were the main findings?
- Digital consumption objects (DCOs) are transient and multiple, unlike enduring and singular physical objects.. Possession of DCOs is enabled and restricted by a network of human and non-human actants beyond the end consumer.. Fragmented ownership leads to DCOs being enacted as both personal possessions and company assets, creating conflicting ontologies.
- What research method was used?
- Qualitative research with 20 participants.
- How strong is the evidence?
- Evidence strength is rated Moderate effect, based on a 2015 journal from ePrints Soton (University of Southampton).
- What should I do differently in my next project?
- When designing a digital service, map out all the potential human and non-human elements that could influence a user's perception of their 'ownership' and interaction with the service.
- What are the limitations?
- The study focused on UK consumers, and the findings may not be universally applicable across different cultural contexts. The theoretical framework of actor-network theory can be complex to apply comprehensively.