LocalWiki: A Review of Genre Ecology Instability across Classes of Participants by Michael R. Trice, M.A. A Dissertation In Technical Communication and Rhetoric Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Dr. Brian Still Chair of Committee Dr. Rich Rice Dr. Liza Potts Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School August, 2019 Copyright 2019, Michael R. Trice Texas Tech University, Michael R. Trice, August 2019 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS How far back does one to go to write acknowledgements of this magnitude? It would be far less than hyperbole to list every mentor and teacher since grade school— and family, well, I come from a large family. Let me simply start by saying that I know and recognize the impossible network of people, opportunity, and affordance than allowed this task to be completed. More specifically, let me start with my committee. Dr. Still’s patience and assertiveness have no doubt been the driving external forces for completion of this dissertation. More importantly, however, his introduction of the formal application of Usability Studies was eye opening in 2010. The ability to blend qualitative and quantitative approaches in considering the power of networks as a matter of genre and agency filled so many gaps in my early fumbling to blend philosophy and rigorous research. His commitment to rigor and his understanding that sometimes you make the right choices for your family first have been instrumental in shaping my last, well, nine years. I want to thank Dr. Rice for frequent interest and check-ins, but also his meticulous care in calling out the weakness of vital arguments within the dissertation. I also want to thank Dr. Potts for the pressure to finish this task and reminding me that one cannot race too far forward without resolving what rests in the past. I also want to thank Dr. Cargile Cook for support in framing this dissertation and initial feedback on some of the most crucial chapters. I want to thank the entire TCR department at Texas Tech for allowing me to take my interest in theory and demonstrating how to ground it within methods and for providing a home to those of us who had long spent time in industry to return to the ii Texas Tech University, Michael R. Trice, August 2019 academic institution in a way that made the most of our professional experience. I most certainly want to thank all my fellow students in the TCR program for all their support, most especially Charity Tran, Dr. Andrea Beaudin, Dr. Jeremy Huston, Dr. Jeannie Bennet, Dr. Chris Andrews, and—what’s his name; the bald one—oh, yes, Dr. Peter England. I also want to thank my current home of WRAP at MIT. The support of Dr. Lane, Dr. Karatsolis, and Dr. Stickgold-Sarah (that is weird to type) were beyond instrumental to both finishing this dissertation and helping me grow as a scholar over the last six years. I should also thank the Hambo Institute for keeping me sane and entertained. The same for all the tables that came before them. I also want to thank the LocalWiki founders for their time, patience, and assistance. Thank you, Mike Ivanov and Philip Neustrom. More than anything I owe a huge debt to my family. All four kids paid a particular price so that I could finish this task, and I thank them for their support— even when the older three sometimes forget this task hasn’t been completed yet. I, of course, more than anything else, thank Shannon. The work she has done and the support she has provided goes well beyond what could possibly have been expected. This step would not have been possible without her love and grace. Finally, I want to thank my moms and sister. Sherry Trice and Sharon Huddleston-Cheatham, I hope I’ve done you both proud. Tracy, I will always love and miss you and whenever it seemed too hard, I remembered your strength and simply tried to have half of that. iii Texas Tech University, Michael R. Trice, August 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ viii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. xi I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 From DavisWiki to LocalWiki to LocalWiki Denton ................................. 3 1.2. Why a LocalWiki? ..................................................................................... 6 1.3 Participant Resistance ................................................................................. 9 1.4 Central Questions ...................................................................................... 10 1.5 The Approach ............................................................................................ 12 1.6 A Word on the Timing of Data Collection ................................................ 14 1.7 Overview of Chapters ............................................................................... 14 1.7.1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................... 15 1.7.2 Chapter 3: Methods .......................................................................... 15 1.7.3 Chapter 4: Interview Results ............................................................ 16 1.7.4 Chapter 5: Usability Testing Results ................................................ 16 1.7.5 Chapter 6: Analysis of Participant Perceptions and Behaviors ........ 17 1.7.6 Chapter 7: Discussion ...................................................................... 17 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................. 19 2.1 Platform Governance and Participatory Culture ....................................... 20 2.2 Technical Communication and the Wiki ................................................... 27 2.3 Platform and Participant as Genre Actors ................................................. 32 2.4 Toward a Method of Tools, Convention, and People ............................... 36 2.4.1 Interviews ......................................................................................... 37 2.4.2 Usability ........................................................................................... 37 2.4.3 Mapping ........................................................................................... 39 III. METHODS .................................................................................................... 43 3.1 Examining the Parallel Role of Interviews and Usability in Examining the LocalWiki Denton ........................................................................................... 46 3.2 Call for Participants ................................................................................... 49 3.2.1 Participants ....................................................................................... 49 iv Texas Tech University, Michael R. Trice, August 2019 3.2.2 Selection ........................................................................................... 51 3.2.3 Order of Participation ....................................................................... 52 3.3 Phase One: Interviews ............................................................................... 53 3.3.1 Question Design ............................................................................... 53 3.3.2 Interview Process ............................................................................. 55 3.3.3 Interview Analysis ........................................................................... 55 3.4 Phase Two: Usability Testing ................................................................... 56 3.4.1 Why Use SUS .................................................................................. 57 3.4.2 How Many Participants .................................................................... 59 3.4.3 Testing process ................................................................................. 61 3.4.4 Evaluation Process ........................................................................... 62 IV. TURNING INTERVIEWS INTO TASKS ................................................. 66 4.1 Questions ................................................................................................... 67 4.1.2 New Participant Questions ............................................................... 67 4.1.2 Experienced Participants Questions ................................................. 68 4.1.3 Design Participants Questions .......................................................... 68 4.2 Population ................................................................................................. 70 4.2.1 New Participants .................................................................................... 71 4.2.2 Experienced Participants .................................................................. 71 4.2.3 Design Participants ........................................................................... 71 4.3 Results ....................................................................................................... 72 4.3.1 New Participants .............................................................................. 72 4.3.2 Experienced