Material Mediations Complicate Communication Privacy Management : The Case of Wilma in Finnish High Schools

International Journal of Communication 13(2019), 5752–5770 1932–8036/20190005 Copyright © 2019 (Asko Lehmuskallio and Airi Lampinen). Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). Available at http://ijoc.org. Material Mediations Complicate Communication Privacy Management: The Case of Wilma in Finnish High Schools ASKO LEHMUSKALLIO Tampere University, Finland AIRI LAMPINEN Stockholm University, Sweden Increasingly, school settings are implementing digital technologies to coordinate teachers’ work. This article examines the role of these technologies in teachers’ boundary regulation processes through the lens of communication privacy management theory, and it provides empirical insight into the renegotiation of being a teacher in the presence of rules formalized in software code. The case of Finnish high school teachers exposed to the use of Wilma, a distributed computing system used to store, process, and transmit student data, revealed experiences of a need to renegotiate formalized and trackable work processes, faster and more colloquial communication, and intensified day-to-day work. These influence modes of accountability and the need to negotiate visibility, along with understandings of rules as a central coordination mechanism for interpersonal boundary regulation. The authors suggest in addition that these technologies inure various social stakeholders to constant technical monitoring and regular accounting, thereby advancing the normalization of surveillance practices. This creates good reason to pay closer attention to how rules of engagement may be coordinated. Keywords: communication privacy management, boundary turbulence, rules, social media, boundary regulation, high school, education, formalization, surveillance Digital technologies are increasingly implemented in school settings to facilitate education, streamline communication between teachers and parents, and to monitor both students’ and teachers’ performance. Even if implemented with good intentions, they have started to influence social relations at schools in unforeseen ways. The growth of tracking and accounting for one’s actions, coupled with amassing of information on successes and failures in huge databases, has muddled the “rules of engagement.” In our experience, it is not uncommon for high school teachers to maintain that the boundaries between teachers and students are now blurred, that they find this problematic, and that they associate it with the implementation of digital technologies. Asko Lehmuskallio: As[email protected]i Airi Lampinen: ai[email protected] Date submitted: 2019–01–10 International Journal of Communication 13(2019) Material Mediations 5753 As characterized by Petronio (2002), fuzzy privacy boundaries are a possible source of boundary turbulence. The affordances of novel communication technologies complicate boundary management by introducing parallel mechanisms for coordinating social interactions that differ greatly from earlier modes of communication. Their implementation is an opportune moment for reevaluating how coordination is handled because earlier rules of engagement need to be modified and adjusted. Our recent interviews with high school teachers, however, show that this blurring of privacy boundaries, with the associated turbulence, remains poorly understood once digital communication technologies are deployed in their workplace and in society at large. In diverse countries, among them the United States, Switzerland, and Finland, schools have implemented systems for reporting incidents internally and to communicate conveniently with relevant stakeholders, such as the parents. In Finland, where these systems have been in use since 2000, most schools have implemented the Wilma distributed computing system, by StarSoft, to store student data in preconfigured databases, process the data in accordance with prescriptive rules, and transmit the resulting information to selected parties. In 2013, StarSoft reported that Wilma is used in more than 95% of primary and secondary schools in Finland, and its acquisition in 2016 by Visma heralded its introduction for higher education facilities and kindergartens. With its rules, the system influences norms as to how teachers “should” act, thereby ushering in situational uncertainty related to social roles. Moreover, using Wilma is compulsory for the parents, too—at least if they want to be informed of changes in class schedules, see requests related to sports practice, and the like. These developments gave impetus to our study of high school teachers’ experiences of Wilma and its impacts on interpersonal boundary management. Our study was grounded in Petronio’s (2002, 2013) communication privacy management (CPM) theory, a rule-based approach that extends Altman’s (1975) early work to account for complexity in boundary management processes. The concept of rules is important in CPM, where it can be understood to refer to an ad hoc situational guideline for determining what kinds of information to reveal, to whom, and when, by placing particular emphasis on social context. Recently, CPM theory has been applied in an educational context, with scholars such as Hosek and Thompson (2009) studying how privacy rules are developed and privacy boundaries are coordinated in a university context and within the student–teacher relationship. This article answers Hosek and Thompson’s call for research that addresses how the Internet affects boundary regulation in schools. In doing so, it builds on and complements CPM scholarship on computer-mediated communication and interpersonal boundary management (Child, Haridakis, & Petronio, 2012; Child & Westermann, 2013; DeGroot & Vik, 2017; Frampton & Child, 2013; Imlawi & Gregg, 2014; Lampinen, 2016; Litt & Hargittai, 2014; Palen & Dourish, 2003; Petronio, 2013; Pike, Bateman, & Butler, 2009; Stutzman & Hartzog, 2012; Vitak & Kim, 2014). Our study focused on the role that material mediations play in boundary regulation processes, specifically by providing empirical insight into the renegotiation of being a teacher in the presence of rules formalized in software code. Lauer (2012) has argued that 19th-century inventions, including photography, the phonograph, and the telephone, have contributed to the proliferation of evidence-producing communication technologies—or even an evidential paradigm—and thus to the intensification of contemporary surveillance. That perspective only accentuates the need for further research on privacy management in conditions of electronic surveillance in the workplace and as surveillance is becoming normalized, at least in terms of what young people accept as part and parcel of full participation in social life (Fulton & Kibby, 2017). Whereas Allen, Coopman, Hart, and Walker (2007) examined the establishment of privacy boundaries during new-employee 5754 Asko Lehmuskallio and Airi Lampinen International Journal of Communication 13(2019) orientation, we turn our attention to a case wherein the organizations change as new technology gets introduced. Although teachers have long needed to adjust to codes of conduct enshrined in legislation, national curricula, and school-specific guidelines, the obligatory use of particular software in teaching influences the flexibility of making personal choices, based on the teacher’s professional discretion, and it changes patterns linked to teachers’ accountability for their work. We address the roles played by various communication media in the renegotiation of privacy boundaries, placing emphasis on the complex mediated entanglements within which teachers navigate socially (Vigh, 2009). In addition to CPM scholarship, we thus contribute to computersupported cooperative work scholars’ research on affordances and relational infrastructures (Bowker, Timmermans, Clarke, & Balka, 2016; Guribye, 2015; Schmidt & Simone, 1996) and also to the growing body of research in media studies (Evans, Pearce, Vitak, & Treem, 2017; Gillespie, Boczkowski, & Foot, 2014; Marwick & boyd, 2014; Schüttpelz, 2016). We will begin by describing Wilma, the software system at the center of our analysis, and introducing our theoretical framework and the setting for our study. We then present our analysis of teachers’ experiences of Wilma, elaborating on how the software system formalizes work processes and renders them more traceable, supports faster and more colloquial communication, and intensifies the day-to-day interactions at work. The introduction of Wilma in schools transforms rules for boundary linkages, boundary co-ownership, and boundary permeability. The Wilma Software Wilma has become a central coordination tool in Finnish school settings. It includes a set of rules addressing how to archive, process, and transmit information that pertains to everyday activities in schools. Wilma’s Web-based interface enables students, teachers, and parents to follow and coordinate education work, with the back end involving databases provided via two separate programs, Primus and Kurre, to enable management of studentand education-related school matters. In line with our interviewees’ practice, we refer to the entire bundle of software (composed of the Web-based interface and the databases) as Wilma. Wilma provides channels for one-to-one and one-to-many communication among teachers, students, and the students’ guardians. Some interviewees compared Wilma’s messaging functionality to instant messaging and others to e-mail. The messaging function can be used by any parties to communicate with any others, except that parents cannot send messages to students. Wilma’s functions are categorized by the action involved, helping people organize, report, and share information related to day-to-day school life. In essence, Wilma provides a discipline mechanism applied for reporting school-related data to the stakeholders. It aids the school in its work as a broader disciplinary institution, helping to form students’ bodies into societally desired ones, as “primuses,” as literally suggested by the database name. The various stakeholders differ in their access and communication rights and hence experience the system in different ways. Each group interacts with a Web-based interface tailored to that group and personalized for it and its individual members. Instead of allowing users to add “friends” and thereby determine the sets of people they interact with, as is typical of social-network services in the leisure domain, Wilma establishes an online social network for each individual, based on that person’s role in the social world of the school. International Journal of Communication 13(2019) Material Mediations 5755 Teachers, including the principal and school counselors, have the most extensive access rights, with the principal having access to all content, the study advisers to most, and the teachers to information on the school in general and on the groups and individual students whom they teach. Teachers use the system both for gathering and tracking data about students and for communicating with students, other teachers, and parents. The students, in turn, obtain general information related to the school and their curriculum, their grades, and their absences, whereas parents (or other guardians) get information about the child and the school in general. Students are able to access their own data and communicate with school representatives. Parents, too, can access the relevant student’s data. They can also use Wilma to communicate with teachers. If this is not outright required, they are at least very strongly encouraged to do so. Theoretical Background We subscribe to scholarship arguing that privacy should be considered explicitly in its social context (e.g., considering contextual integrity; see Nissenbaum, 2010) and with sensitivity to the networked character of digital social interaction, especially such elements as networked privacy (see Marwick & boyd, 2014). Literature on interpersonal boundary regulation and CPM (Altman, 1975, 1977; Petronio, 2002, 2013) has offered models for considering negotiation of privacy within a broader social context. One premise of that work is that humans as social beings take up roles in interpersonal interaction and may behave differently in keeping with the particular situation in which they find themselves. The same individual might talk, walk, and think differently when acting as a teacher than when filling the role of a friend, a tourist, or a spouse. These regulation mechanisms can be employed not only by an individual but also by groups of people, who may regulate their boundaries together (Altman, 1975; Petronio, 2002). Boundary Regulation as an Interpersonal Process Altman is commonly credited with providing a framework for understanding boundary regulation as an interpersonal process. His framework is widely used in research on computer-mediated communication (see, e.g., Palen & Dourish, 2003; Stutzman & Hartzog, 2012) and is of particular importance for recent work employing Petronio’s (e.g., 2002, 2013) approach to CPM (Child et al., 2012; Child & Westermann, 2013; DeGroot & Vik, 2017; Frampton & Child, 2013; Litt & Hargittai, 2014; Pike et al., 2009; Vitak & Kim, 2014). The starting point here is an individual who, irrespective of cultural variation (Altman, 1977), needs ways to manage a “satisfactory match of desired and achieved privacy” (Altman, 1975, p. 26). In Altman’s model, privacy is a dialectical process that is influenced by the inputs from others to an individual and the outputs that the individual gives to others. Excessively little interaction leads to social isolation, and too much yields feelings of crowding and intrusion. According to Altman, boundary regulation processes are essential for defining boundaries of the self. The means to control, define, and observe boundaries give agency to the individual, who is considered able to regulate the boundaries in an effort to make sure the level of privacy desired and the level achieved match. 5756 Asko Lehmuskallio and Airi Lampinen International Journal of Communication 13(2019) Communication Privacy Management Theory Petronio took Altman’s approach further by developing CPM theory, which focuses explicitly on the ways in which individuals and groups decide how to regulate the revealing or concealing of private information and provides more in-depth understanding than does Altman’s fundamentally cybernetic model. Petronio (2002) suggests that “when we reveal, we disclose private information” (p. 5). The definition is narrowed down by suggesting that private information is something individuals consider to have personal ownership over (Child & Petronio, 2011, p. 23) and that individuals develop and apply rules to control information flow (Petronio, 2002). From these starting points, she goes on to characterize boundary regulation as a rule-based management system that individuals and groups employ for deciding to whom private information is to be disclosed and from whom it is to be withheld (Petronio, 2002, p. 86). Once an individual shares a particular piece of private information, that information becomes collectively co-owned by those among whom it is shared. In sharing, the individual applies rules addressing with whom to share what kinds of information, when, and under what circumstances. Petronio’s rule-based rendering of how information flows are controlled in social interaction pays particular attention to this collectively co-owned information and to how people manage collective boundaries, such as those within families, in groups of friends, or among work colleagues (in our case, teachers). Scholars of CPM posit three types of rules that are used to coordinate the flow of private information and manage collectively held boundaries (Child & Petronio, 2011, p. 24; Petronio, 2002). First, privacy-boundary permeability rules are rules that individuals and groups develop and employ for regulating the kind and amount of private information that they disclose to others. These might be very rigid, allowing very little private information to be revealed, or rather loose, restricting the revelation of only a few specific types of private information. Second, privacy-boundary ownership rules are applied to regulate who possesses specific types of information. When disclosing private information, an individual might, for instance, reserve the right to decide on those to whom others are allowed to reveal the information. Finally, privacy-boundary linkage rules are rules that individuals and groups apply to decide on the people to whom private information is linked and, thus, whose concern the private information is going to be. For example, people in certain professions, such as teachers or police officers, are required to reveal private information to state authorities when that information may indicate harm to people or damage to property. Boundary Turbulence and the Notion of a Rule Central to both Altman’s and Petronio’s approach is the understanding that individuals must proactively regulate interpersonal boundaries and that if they do not do so, they risk not having a “satisfactory match of desired and achieved privacy” (Altman, 1975, p. 26). When expectations have not been fulfilled, boundary turbulence occurs, and rules for regulating private information have to be renegotiated. Petronio (2002) notes that “turbulence occurs when the rules for managing the tensions between privacy and disclosure somehow fail to be coordinated among the boundary members” (p. 19). Accordingly, although rules are situational and contextually applied, some rules gain stability by being repeatedly used or with the expectation of use. These rules may be maintained by an individual, dyad, or collective, as in the case of rules on disclosure of family or corporate affairs. While boundary turbulence may take many forms, it—as the word “turbulence” suggests—describes a situation of confusion or conflict, found when outcomes are not International Journal of Communication 13(2019) Material Mediations 5757 in line with the desires and expectations of those involved. It follows that, in many cases, active coping strategies are developed for dealing with boundary turbulence. The notion of a rule, although central for description of communication privacy theory, is, again, very broadly defined in Petronio’s (2002) work. She presumes that “private disclosures are dialectical, that people make choices about revealing or concealing based on criteria and conditions they perceive as salient, and that individuals fundamentally believe they have a right to own and regulate access to their private information” (p. 2). Although Petronio describes rule management processes as central to her framework, “rule” seems to denote primarily a situational heuristic that is contextually applied. Hence, rules are not fixed ab initio, but change over time, may be not adhered to in some cases, and can be renegotiated. By its very nature, the “rule” structuring device that is so central to the theory is flexible, malleable, and adjustable. Activated Affordances and Relational Infrastructures There is an important difference between the notion of rules as discussed by Petronio and rules as implemented in a software system such as Wilma: Whereas Petronio’s understanding of a rule refers to situated, often ad hoc, guidelines for determining what kind of information to disclose to whom and when, algorithmic systems, including Wilma, rely on rules that have to be explicitly laid out in software structures. This formalizes the sequence of operations, leaving less freedom and flexibility for pursuing boundary negotiation. These kind of computing systems thereby formalize social relations, transforming how they may be upheld and negotiated. The clash between negotiable rules, as described in CPM theory, and the formal, often immutable rules of software systems merits closer attention. In considering how material mediations complicate boundary regulation, we draw on literature on affordances and relational infrastructures. Gibson (1988) coined the concept of affordances to describe the relations between human beings (or animals) and objects in their environments. While, for example, some objects afford humans’ throwing of them, others may be too large and heavy, thereby giving greater affordance to such actions as standing or sitting on them. Media scholars have increasingly focused on affordances (Evans et al., 2017) to aid in explaining medium-specific differences in the use of communication media. In our understanding, affordances are not necessarily noticed; they have to be activated as part of meaningful actions (Lehmuskallio, 2012). We use the concept of activated affordances to pay specific attention to the relations that teachers take with the various devices when using Wilma and how these, together with the software, afford mediumspecific actions that have an impact on interpersonal boundary regulation, as outlined in CPM. These affordances have to be activated as part of interpersonal interaction, and this activation is situationally and contextually negotiated. Importantly, software systems do not become visible only as part of specific interactions (e.g., affording specific types of communication)—they are part of relational infrastructures. These are embedded and transparent; embodied in keeping with standards and linked with conventions of practice; built for a base of existing structures, with membership and learning of their use bound up together; and visible only upon breakdown (Bowker et al., 2016; Star & Ruhleder, 1996). 5758 Asko Lehmuskallio and Airi Lampinen International Journal of Communication 13(2019) A focus on relational infrastructures allows us to point toward the spatiotemporal settings in which Wilma is embedded, and it enables discussion of how these influence boundary negotiation. For example, software systems are presented somewhat differently on the basis of who is using them, while maintaining a recognizable common identity across sites. In CPM theory, rules are negotiated at both the individual-level and collective-level boundaries. Instances of boundary turbulence serve as lenses for examining the effect of activated affordances on boundary-negotiation processes at both levels. Because we consider infrastructures to be relational, we focus on negotiation processes of one particular social group at schools—teachers—and their activation of particular affordances, specifically those related to Wilma. By taking on the case of Wilma in Finnish high schools, our work addresses how material mediations affect the management of communication privacy in the presence of rules formalized in software code. Material and Methods Our study examined teachers’ experiences of using a specific online social-network tool and database application, for purposes of yielding insight into its role in their boundary-regulation processes. To this end, we examined the values and objectives built into Wilma, as they may be revealed by Wilma’s main features and the types of action it allows for and encourages, and how teachers perceive its impact on their experiences of everyday school life in light of these. The data were collected by applying an approach similar to the walkthrough method (Light, Burgess, & Duguay, 2018) in going through the actual user interfaces used by selected high school teachers. Data were provided also by the software company’s demo mode, which is used to sell the software to educational facilities. Our analysis of Wilma was complemented with examination of material from nine semistructured one-on-one interviews with Finnish high school teachers. The participants were recruited from public high schools in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, where Wilma has been in long-term use. In the invitation, we asked teachers to take part in a study on the effects of the increasing everyday presence of various ICTs on their work and leisure. Of the nine interviewees, four were female and five were male. One had begun teaching only recently, whereas others had extensive experience. All participants used Wilma and other ICTs implemented in their school’s work flow as a part of day-to-day professional life, although to a varying degree and with variable enthusiasm. A transcription service was used for translating the interview data into textual form, and the two authors then collaboratively conducted thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis focused specifically on understanding how material mediations complicate CPM, by coding relevant sections of the material and then interpreting these in more detail in reference to the empirical material and related literature. We regularly discussed findings and their interpretations by meeting in person and online. After several rounds of meetings, we concluded that thematic saturation (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006) had been achieved and deemed further interviews unnecessary. The interview excerpts presented below are translated from the original Finnish, with the aim of achieving accuracy in both meaning and style. Findings and Interpretation Our analysis focused on teachers’ accounts of boundary turbulence, their perceived needs for CPM, and the changes in codes of conduct they associate with the introduction of ICTs at schools in general and that of Wilma in particular. We illustrate the influences in terms of the boundary-negotiation International Journal of Communication 13(2019) Material Mediations 5759 dimensions outlined by Petronio: privacy-boundary linkage rules, boundary-ownership rules, and boundary-permeability rules. The First Major Theme: Formalized and Trackable Work Processes Wilma transforms how teachers contact parents, students, and fellow teachers. The rules specified within the software influence how individuals may act in the role of teacher, parent, or student. Wilma, as a software system, is built with logical sequences and formal rules in mind. Teachers are made accountable about how they follow specific instructions, without as much room for flexibility and renegotiation as is found in face-to-face encounters. This increases the likelihood of boundary turbulence. Automation of Boundary Linkages Boundary linkages are the connections made to other people, extending privacy boundaries from individuals to dyadic and larger-group relations (Petronio, 2002, pp. 29–30). Making some linkages is expected. For example, when a student arrives at school late, the parents should be notified, and students should be informed in advance when a class is rescheduled. Wilma is used for exactly these types of purposes. Not all communication flows via Wilma, however. Instead, some individuals resort also to e-mail messages, social-network sites, phone calls, text messages (SMS), and face-to-face meetings. This makes it more challenging to coordinate communication flows in line with everyone’s expectations and can lead to boundary turbulence. Wilma automates some of these boundary linkages. This is in line with descriptions found in classic computer-supported cooperative work literature on work-flow systems wherein “formalism makes it possible to embed the categorisation into a computer system [with] parts of this formalism . . . entirely automated by the system” (Grinter, 1997, p. 173). All users receive particular access rights within Wilma, with their assigned roles determining their access to input information. This influences the possibility of negotiating boundary linkages because the ad hoc property familiar from face-to-face rule use is lost. The use of varying degrees of boundary linkages, commonplace in teachers’ work, is more difficult to control: Because the details are disseminated to a predefined group, everyone receives the same information. Punishments meted out for discipline are registered in Wilma under the heading “detentions.” The user interface for teachers provides access to data about punishments for all students at their school, even those a particular teacher does not teach. This boundary linkage extends teachers’ knowledge of the schools’ students significantly beyond that in earlier forms of boundary linkage, wherein similar information would travel, but less systematically, through discussions among teachers. Permanence of Boundary Co-Ownership Boundary linkages lead, in turn, to boundary co-ownerships. These need to be negotiated: Once private information is disclosed, the rules for rights and privileges related to the disclosed information must be agreed upon, if particular behavior is to be expected (Petronio, 2002, pp. 30–31). In schools, teachers are subject to various rules arising from their role, of which many are legally binding. Additionally, teachers 5760 Asko Lehmuskallio and Airi Lampinen International Journal of Communication 13(2019) have regular faculty meetings, where they may collectively discuss newly arisen issues. Many also speak directly with a few colleagues about the issues they face. Wilma’s automation of boundary linkages, coupled with the permanence of the communications entered in the system, leads, at times, to problems related to boundary co-ownership. To aid teachers in aligning their communication correctly, Wilma has inbuilt text corpora that present modes of address suggested as appropriate. The software provider has also published a guidebook, Communicate Wisely With Wilma. The guidebook notes the following: The modes of addressing legal guardians are surprisingly important. Those kinds of messages seem to work best that (1) in addition to pointing out a problem also mention how the teacher would like the student to behave in the future and how this is useful, (2) say something that creates a belief in a positive outcome, and (3) ask the guardian for help or advice. (Furman, 2013, p. 4, authors’ translation) The descriptions of these rhetorical means, with templates provided in software as concrete examples, give teachers guidance for particular modes of address. The guidebook recommends explaining explicitly to parents how the teacher wishes the student to act in future, and why. Additionally, the message should contain a positive statement, showing belief in positive change. Finally, the message should underscore the role of the parent as the foremost expert on the child. Because these modes for boundary linkages and co-ownership do not always meet the expectations of the stakeholders involved, the guidebook stresses a need to circumvent some of the elements inherent to Wilma if boundary turbulence with parents does occur. Especially recommended, also according to the interviewees, is the technique of not leaving traces of communication in the system if a parent is particularly strident, demanding, or even hostile. The guide recommends always communicating in person or by phone in these cases. This is in clear parallel to literature on how technology formalizes work flows and how people find ways to work around constraints that impede them from reaching their goals and collaborating with others (e.g., Bowers, Button, & Sharrock, 1995; Lee, Kusbit, Metsky, & Dabbish, 2015). Although this leaves more space for negotiation and can counteract the system’s tendency to increase the tracking and surveilling of individuals’ actions, it is also used to reduce teachers’ liability in cases of conflict. The Second Major Theme: Faster and More Colloquial Communication In the experiences of the teachers we interviewed, ritualized modes of communication, focusing on creation of an interpersonal setting for mutual awareness, respect, and recognition, seem absent from much of the computer-mediated communication in schools. On account of their position in the school’s hierarchy, teachers are used to being addressed with deference, and if they are not, computing technologies are held to blame for part of the perceived loss. Changes in Communication Frequency and Modes of Address Characteristics of communication technologies have an impact on the frequency of interpersonal International Journal of Communication 13(2019) Material Mediations 5767 References Allen, M. W., Coopman, S. J., Hart, J. L., & Walker, K. L. (2007). Workplace surveillance and managing privacy boundaries. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(2), 172–200. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Altman, I. (1977). Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or culturally specific? Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 66–84. Bowers, J., Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1995). Workflow from within and without: Technology and cooperative work on the print industry shopfloor. Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work: ECSCW ’95 (pp. 51–66). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Bowker, G. C., Timmermans, S., Clarke, A. E., & Balka, E. (2016). Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London, UK: Routledge. Child, J. T. & Petronio, S. (2011). Unpacking the paradoxes of privacy in CMC relationships: The challenges of blogging and relational communication on the Internet. In K. Wright & L. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Child, J. T., Haridakis, P. M., & Petronio, S. (2012). Blogging privacy rule orientations, privacy management, and content deletion practices: The variability of online privacy management activity at different stages of social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1859–1872. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.004 Child, J. T., & Westermann, D. A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a communication privacy management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 46–59. doi:10.1080/15267431.2012.742089 Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2018). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television and New Media, 20(4) 336–349. doi:10.1177/1527476418796632 DeGroot, J. M., & Vik, T. A. (2017). “We were not prepared to tell people yet”: Confidentiality breaches 5768 Asko Lehmuskallio and Airi Lampinen International Journal of Communication 13(2019) and boundary turbulence on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 351–359. Dijck, J. van. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208. Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12180 Flyverbom, M., Leonardi, P. M., Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. (2016). The management of visibilities in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10, 98–109. Frampton, B. D., & Child, J. T. (2013). Friend or not to friend: Coworker Facebook friend requests as an application of communication privacy management theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2257–2264. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.006 Fulton, J. M., & Kibby, M. D. (2017). Millennials and the normalization of surveillance on Facebook. Continuum, 31(2), 189–199. Furman, B. (2013). Viesti Wilmalla viisasti. Opettajan opas kodin ja koulun väliseen sähköiseen viestintään [Communicate wisely with Wilma]. Vaasa, Finland: StarSoft. Gibson, J. J. (1988). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goffman, E., & Best, J. (2005). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Grinter, R. (1997). Doing software development: Occasions for automation and formalisation. Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 173–188). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903 Guribye, F. (2015). From artifacts to infrastructures in studies of learning practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(2), 184–198. doi:10.1080/10749039.2015.1021358 Hosek, A. M., & Thompson, J. (2009). Communication privacy management and college instruction: Exploring the rules and boundaries that frame instructor private disclosures. Communication Education, 58(3), 327–349. doi:10.1080/03634520902777585 International Journal of Communication 13(2019) Material Mediations 5769 Imlawi, J., & Gregg, D. (2014). Engagement in online social networks: The impact of self-disclosure and humor. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 30(2), 106–125. Krämer, S. (2006). The cultural techniques of time axis manipulation: On Friedrich Kittler’s conception of media. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(7/8), 93–109. doi:10.1177/0263276406069885 Lampinen, A. (2016). Hosting together via Couchsurfing: Privacy management in the context of network hospitality. International Journal of Communication, 10(20), 1581–1600. Lauer, J. (2012). Surveillance history and the history of new media: An evidential paradigm. New Media & Society, 14(4), 566–582. doi:10.1177/1461444811420986 Lee, M., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015, April). Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Lehmuskallio, A. (2012). Pictorial practices in a “Cam Era.” Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900. doi:10.1177/1461444816675438 Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2014). A bumpy ride on the information superhighway: Exploring turbulence online. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 520–529. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. doi:10.1177/1461444814543995 Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books. Palen, L., & Dourish, P. (2003). Unpacking privacy for a networked world. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129–136). Fort Lauderdale, FL: ACM. Petronio, S. S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on communication privacy management theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 6–14. doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.743426 Pike, J. C., Bateman, P. J., & Butler, B. S. (2009). I didn’t know you could see that: The effect of social networking environment characteristics on publicness and self-disclosure. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, 421. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/421 5770 Asko Lehmuskallio and Airi Lampinen International Journal of Communication 13(2019) Ruckenstein, M., & Schull, N. D. (2017). The datafication of health. Annual Review of Anthropology, 46, 261–278. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041244 Schmidt, K., & Simone, C. (1996). Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 5(2/3), 155–200. doi:10.1007/BF00133655 Schüttpelz, E. (2016). Infrastrukturelle Medien und öffentliche Medien [Infrastructural media and public media]. Media in Action, 0, 1–21. Retrieved from https://dspace.ub.uni-siegen.de/bitstream/ubsi/ 998/1/Infrastrukturelle_Medien_und_oeffentliche_Medien_Schuettpelz.pdf Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 37–54). London, UK: Pitman. Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–391. doi:10.1177/00027649921955326 Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134. doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.111 Stutzman, F., & Hartzog, W. (2012). Boundary regulation in social media. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 769–778). New York, NY: ACM. Vigh, H. (2009). Motion squared: A second look at the concept of social navigation. Anthropological Theory, 9(4), 419–438. doi:10.1177/1463499609356044 Vitak, J. (2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(4), 451–470. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.732140 Vitak, J., & Kim, J. (2014). You can’t block people offline: Examining how Facebook’s affordances shape the disclosure process. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 461–474). New York, NY: ACM. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York, NY: Basic Books. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89. doi:10.1057/jit.2015.5