Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Journal of Digital Social Research

Research Articles

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2021)

Feature Analysis: A Method for Analyzing the Role of Ideology in App Design

DOI
https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v3i2.56
Submitted
August 27, 2020
Published
2021-09-02

Abstract

Many apps are designed to solve a problem or accomplish a task, such as managing a health condition, creating a to-do-list, or finding work. The solutions that app developers offer reflects how they believe that users and other stakeholders understand the problem. Each individual developer may have different ideas but analyzing many apps together can reveal the average or typical ways that developers in the set think about the problems that their apps are designed to solve. Building on content analysis, interface analysis, the concept of affordances, and speculative design, this article offers a new method that we call “feature analysis” to analyze what a set of apps designed to solve the same problem can tell us about the relationship between app design and ideology. By counting and classifying the features in a set of apps, feature analysis enables researchers to systematically answer questions about how app developers’ design choices reflect existing cultural norms, assumptions, and ideologies.

References

  1. Almeida, C., and Báscolo, E. (2006). Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and implementation: A review of the literature. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 22(Suppl.), S7-S19. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2006001300002
  2. Balsamo, A. M. (2011). Designing culture: The technological imagination at work. Duke University Press.
  3. Bivens, R., and Haimson, O. L. (2016). Baking gender into social media design: How platforms shape categories for users and advertisers. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672486
  4. Bivens, R., and Hasinoff, A. A. (2018). Rape: Is there an app for that? An empirical analysis of the features of anti-rape apps. Information, Communication & Society, 21(8), 1050-1067. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1309444
  5. Brock, A. (2018). Critical technocultural discourse analysis. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1012-1030. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816677532
  6. Buolamwini, J., and Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research: Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, USA, 81, 1–15.
  7. Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Unwin Hyman.
  8. Cohn, M. (2017). "Lifetime issues:" Temporal relations of design and maintenance. continent, 6(1), 4-12. http://www.continentcontinent.cc/index.php/continent/article/view/272
  9. Costanza-Chock, S. (2018). Design justice, AI, and escape from the matrix of domination. Journal of Design and Science, 3.5. https://doi.org/10.21428/96c8d426
  10. Davis, J. L. (2020). How artifacts afford: The power and politics of everyday things. MIT Press.
  11. Davis, J. L., and Chouinard, J. B. (2017). Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617714944
  12. Dieter, M., Gerlitz, C., Helmond, A., Tkacz, N., van der Vlist, F. N., and Weltevrede, E. (2019). Multi-situated app studies: Methods and propositions. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119846486
  13. DiSalvo, C. (2012). Spectacles and tropes: Speculative design and contemporary food cultures. The Fibreculture Journal (20), 109-122.
  14. Dunne, A., and Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press.
  15. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
  16. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
  17. Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., and Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
  18. Fiesler, C., Lampe, C., and Bruckman, A. S. (2016). Reality and perception of copyright terms of service for online content creation, Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, USA, 1450–1461. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819931
  19. Forlano, L., and Mathew, A. (2014). From design fiction to design friction: Speculative and participatory design of values-embedded urban technology. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(4), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.971525
  20. Gerlitz, C., Helmond, A., van der Vlist, F. N., and Weltevrede, E. (2019). Regramming the platform: Infrastructural relations between apps and social media. Computational Culture (7). http://computationalculture.net/regramming-the-platform/
  21. Grundy, Q. H., Wang, Z., and Bero, L. A. (2016). Challenges in assessing mobile health app quality: A systematic review of prevalent and innovative methods. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(6), 1051-1059. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.07.009
  22. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., and Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, and law and order. Holmes & Meier.
  23. Hasinoff, A. A. (2017). Where are you? Location tracking and the promise of child safety. Television & New Media, 18(6), 496-512. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476416680450
  24. Head, B. W. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001
  25. Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
  26. Lapowsky, I. (2014, Sept 5). This app is a 21st century rape whistle. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2014/09/circle-of-6/
  27. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
  28. Leurs, K. (2017). Feminist data studies: Using digital methods for ethical, reflexive and situated socio-cultural research. Feminist Review, 115(1), 130-154. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41305-017-0043-1
  29. Light, B., Burgess, J., and Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881-900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438
  30. Lupton, D. (2014). Apps as Artefacts: Towards a critical perspective on mobile health and medical apps. Societies, 4(4), 606-622. http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/4/4/606
  31. Lupton, D. (2015). Quantified sex: A critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(4), 440-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.920528
  32. Magnet, S., and Rodgers, T. (2012). Stripping for the state: Whole body imaging technologies and the surveillance of othered bodies. Feminist Media Studies, 12(1), 101-118.
  33. Martínez-Pérez, B., de la Torre-Díez, I., and López-Coronado, M. (2013). Mobile health applications for the most prevalent conditions by the World Health Organization: Review and analysis. Journal of medical Internet research, 15(6), e120. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2600
  34. Morozov, E. (2014). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.
  35. Morris, J. W., and Murray, S. (Eds.). (2018). Appified: Culture in the age of apps. University of Michigan Press.
  36. Murray, S., and Ankerson, M. S. (2016). Lez takes time: Designing lesbian contact in geosocial networking apps. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 33(1), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2015.1133921
  37. National Network to End Domestic Violence. (no date). App safety center. Retrieved February 18, 2021 from https://www.techsafety.org/appsafetycenter
  38. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
  39. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5
  40. Oliver, M. B. (1994). Portrayals of crime, race, and aggression in “reality?based” police shows: A content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38(2), 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159409364255
  41. Pasulka, N. (2012, April 6). Want to stop rape? There’s an app for that. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/way-to-prevent-rape-app-iphone-apps-against-abuse/
  42. Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. MIT press.
  43. Schüll, N. (2018). LoseIt! Calorie tracking and the discipline of consumption. In J. W. Morris & S. Murray (Eds.), Appified: Culture in the Age of Apps (pp. 103-114). University of Michigan Press.
  44. Slack, J. D., and Wise, J. M. (2005). Culture + technology: A primer. Peter Lang. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0513/2005015547.html
  45. Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., and Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2322-2329. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011
  46. Stanfill, M. (2015). The interface as discourse: The production of norms through web design. New Media & Society, 17(7), 1059-1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814520873
  47. Suchman, L. (2011). Anthropological relocations and the limits of design. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.041608.105640