Diss Outline Chapters 6 – 8

10 January 2011

1. Ch 6 Results
1. presentation of the model that is developed
2. step-by-step how it was developed using the method

2. Ch 7 Analysis
1. analyzes the resulting model
1. strengths
2. weaknesses
3. similarities to others
2. sites where model could potentially be testing

3. Ch 8 Conclusion: Answer these questions

1. Is it possible to answer Redish’s (2007) call for new models of usability which address complex

information systems using the Deleuzean concept of assemblage?

2. Is it possible to use Deleuze's concepts of assemblage and de/territorialization as a method to

generate accurate local models of information complexity

3. Can the works and ideas of Continental philosophers like Deleuze be employed directly by

usability practitioners and technical communicators to improve user experience?

4. Broader implications of this research

5. Potential risks, benefits to: (refer to quals question 3//pasted in doc)

1. TC

2. Usability

3. Deleuzean studies

4. complexity & systems thinking studies

5. tourism
Diss Outline Chapters 6 – 8
10 January 2011

For Chapter 6: results

For Chapter 7 analysis

For Chapter 8.4

taken from quals question 3: broader implications of the research

What Will a Non-Linear, Rhizmoic Ontology Bring to Usability?

In usability, introducing a non-linear, rhizomic ontology has multiple implications. It is an overt claim
and understanding that linear causality does not and cannot explain all user or product related issues;
there are likely multiple unseen factors which are impacting usability tests, and those factors may or
may not be detected by the usability test. Directly relevant to this dissertation, non-linear rhizomic
ontology encourages the development and inclusion of models, methods, and approaches in the field of
usability testing which have not been applied there or have been rarely practiced. This approach also
values the perspectives and views of non-usability specialists in usability testing because they may be
able to identify non-linear patterns of interaction which usability practitioners may not recognize
because of their specialized training as well as their professional goals and skill sets.
As partially discussed in question 2, usability's current emphasis and ontology is centered around well-
constructed tasks and problems where, in most cases, a simple, clear cut solution is expected. This
ontology, this paradigm, has developed methods that are successful in addressing simple problems.
However, nearly a decade's work in usability and four decades of work in the sciences on complexity
have demonstrated quite clearly simple systems and simple problems are usually the exception and not
the rule. While aspects of complex systems may be simple, such as a specific task or procedure, that
simple task or procedure is part of a larger, complex system that is far more complicated. Getting
money from an ATM may be a simple task, but that is part of a larger, more complex process like
going grocery shopping or selecting a gift for an in-law.

This paradigm is so entrenched in usability that even Redish's call for change emphasizes methods and
tactics and does not discuss new paradigms, theories, or ontologies. Perhaps models can be considered
as new theories, but she does not explicitly call for new theories among her calls for numerous changes
Diss Outline Chapters 6 – 8
10 January 2011

and adaptations needed for usability practitioners (2007). Albers is similarly confined or restrained in
his work, but he seems to have intentionally framed his focus on complexity to informational
complexity as an aspect of his larger work within technical communication and usability. However, I
have not found a call for new theories or paradigms in his work, either (2003, 2010a, 2010b).

A non-linear rhizomic ontology does not offer usability a single-source solution to the problems of complexity.

That would be swell, but it's not the case. Instead, a non-linear, rhizomic ontology offers usability another

paradigm through which to view usability, systems, and relationships between the different parts of users,

usability practitioners, and the systems that they are testing. Unlike other paradigms which often calcify and

become rigid in their world view, accurate versions of Deleuzean ontologies are centered on creating new

concepts, on seeing things in new ways, and perpetually developing and growing. An assemblage-based

ontology necessitates the acceptance of perpetual growth and change through the processes of

de/territorialization. Thus, a non-linear, rhizomic ontology based on Deleuze can not and will not result in a fixed

set of methods, approaches, or tools for usability practitioners. Instead, it encourages usability practitioners to

use old methods in new ways, to create new assemblages out of the current tools and new tools, to perpetually

move forward and develop their testing methods, theories, tools, collaborations, and approaches—and that

includes continually developing different ontologies for their work.

For Chapter 8.5/ Conclusion

Taken from Quals question 3

Risks for Usabiltiy & Deleuzean Studies

For usability, one of the greatest risks for introducing operationalized Deleuzean concepts is that
productivity, efficiency, and results will be watered down while confusion about and resentment
towards theories like Deleuze increase. This could happen easily. First, if attempts to operationalize
Deleuze are done in the efficiency and cost-centered approach that much of usability is done, it is likely
that the finer points which require a bit more time to work with or understand will be ignored, cut off,
or edited out. Attempting to work with just one part of Deleuze, say assemblage, without
de/territorialization may help usability practitioners generate a new term with which to work, but
without the attendant and supporting concepts, it will not be a new model. Instead, it will be simply
another term which obfuscates and confuses matters. Generating or including extra language and terms
for itw own sake offers little to usability. Promoting such terms without any tangible benefit will likely
Diss Outline Chapters 6 – 8
10 January 2011

create resentment among users and dismissal of ideas or theories which are seen as being related or tied
to it.

Second, if individuals familiar with Deleuzean theory are brought into usability teams in order to
provide additional perspectives or to contribute to research and development, and these individuals do
not have adequate background or training in usability, several problems will likely develop. First, the
team's productivity will likely drop because of resentment towards the person for their lack of
preparation. Second, time and resources may be wasted in order to bring that expert up to speed. Third,
that person may waste the team's time by attempting to develop or increase the team's understanding of
Deleuze instead of offering up material, perspectives, and content that is directly related to the usability
problem under discussion. That is, the expert may not be generating ideas or concepts and, going
against Deleuze's approach, instead offer up low-value critiques. These are all potentially colossal
wastes of time, energy, and resources.

Another attendant risk of operationalizing Deleuze for usability practitioners is attempting to explain its
value to paying customers. Given clients' importance and their general disinterest in theory, usability
practitioners would have to make spectacular arguments to convince their clients to fund such a
position or team member. Attempting to do so could cause client loss in current or future bids. This is
problematic, and few businesses willingly take on such risks. This concern ties in directly to the issue
of value. Even with Redish's (1995) solid explanation of how to argue for technical communication's
contribute value to a business, technical communicators still have difficulty explaining their value to
employers and customers. If this is the case, Continental Theorists have a sliver of a chance making a
successful argument about their value to business managers.

Most importantly, one of the biggest risks which usability faces in introducing operationalized
Deleuzean concepts is wasting time arguing for or against the very presence of the Deleuzean, or what
exactly a real “Deleuzean” is, instead of actually attempting to use some of the concepts. That is, the
ideological battle over theory's value in marketplace usability is likely to cost more time and money
than the actual process and cost of bringing such a theorist on board.

Additional risks include thinking that Deleuze is the only potentially valuable theorist to work with,
that assemblage & de/territorialization are the only potential ideas that can be applied in usability, or
other forms of limited interest in Continental theory. Instead of seeing Deleuze and assemblage
operationalization as a chance and way to consider Continental theory, and if it works to check out
other theorists, Deleuze may be treated as a one-trick pony. That's it. And that, frankly, would
potentially rob usability of other possibly very useful theorists and methods which may not be
considered if the Deleuzean test is a failure. In short, “We tried Deleuze, and it was a waste of time.
Why should we bother with Butler, Zizek, Lyotard, or whomever?”

The dangers for Deleuzean studies from operationalizing Deleuzean concepts are much more limited.
First and foremost, few Deleuzean scholars seem interested in actually applying Deleuzean concepts in
Diss Outline Chapters 6 – 8
10 January 2011

the marketplace or in creating new concepts per Deleuzean practice. As such, operationalization is
likely to be ignored or dismissed by Deleuzean theorists than posing a risk to the field. This kind of
potentially petty issue also poses one of the most significant risks to the field, and that risk is wasting
time arguing about whether or not Deleuze should be applied in the marketplace or not and/or what is
real or authentic Deleuzean research. This is a problem because instead of seeking to generate concepts
and develop ideas, individuals focus on factionalized fights and claims to lineages and scholarly titles
while doing little for humanity, ecology, or economy.

There is the slight risk of Deleuzean theory's reputation among non-Deleuzean scholars in that
outsiders may conceive of Deleuze and his work through the lens established in operationalized
Deleuze within the usability context without making an attempt to get the larger picture of Deleuze and
his works. Very little can be done about this.

The biggest risk to Deleuzean studies does not fall directly with Deleuzean scholars, I think but with people who

encounter Deleuze and have a slight working familiarity with him. There is the risk that for these populations,

Deleuze could become formulaic, down to checklists or workbook style approaches, which freeze the flow—

much like Freirean workbooks freeze the liberatory nature of his pedagogy—and are Deleuzean in name only.

An associated risk is that Deleuzean concepts are slowly but surely shifted and adapted to suit the material and

ideological goals of individuals instead of reframing those goals or developing/creating additional terms. While

this may appear problematic to Deleuzean purists, I regard it as a deterritorialization of Deleuze's own

terminology and something which is currently happening. Unfortunately, when this occurs, individuals who are

working with Deleuze will likely not understand or appreciate the full value and richness of the theory with which

they are working. And this is the greatest loss: to overlook brilliance for a convenient metric or short-term result.