[Paper Review] Against Scale: Provocations and Resistances to Scale Thinking

Alex Hanna, Tina M. Park|arXiv (Cornell University)|Oct 17, 2020

Information Systems Theories and ImplementationSocial Sciences18 references36 citations

TL;DR

The paper interrogates scale thinking as the default in tech, argues it often hinders systemic and equitable change, and proposes mutual aid as a resistance framework with concrete evaluation questions for collaborative tech design.

ABSTRACT

At the heart of what drives the bulk of innovation and activity in Silicon Valley and elsewhere is scalability. This unwavering commitment to scalability -- to identify strategies for efficient growth -- is at the heart of what we refer to as "scale thinking." Whether people are aware of it or not, scale thinking is all-encompassing. It is not just an attribute of one's product, service, or company, but frames how one thinks about the world (what constitutes it and how it can be observed and measured), its problems (what is a problem worth solving versus not), and the possible technological fixes for those problems. This paper examines different facets of scale thinking and its implication on how we view technology and collaborative work. We argue that technological solutions grounded in scale thinking are unlikely to be as liberatory or effective at deep, systemic change as their purveyors imagine. Rather, solutions which resist scale thinking are necessary to undo the social structures which lie at the heart of social inequality. We draw on recent work on mutual aid networks and propose questions to ask of collaborative work systems as a means to evaluate technological solutions and guide designers in identifying sites of resistance to scale thinking.

Motivation & Objective

• Define scale thinking and its prevalence in technology and society.
• Analyze the moral and operational implications of scaling, quantification, and standardization.
• Critique scalability-driven design and its impact on marginalized groups and datafication.
• Introduce mutual aid as a resistive framework and provide evaluative questions for collaborative systems.

Proposed method

• Synthesize existing literature on scale, standardization, and datafication to frame scale thinking as a moral and operational stance.
• Use Bed-Stuy Strong mutual aid as a case study to illustrate resistance to scalable solutions.
• Draw on mutual aid scholarship (Spade) to formulate evaluative questions for tech systems.
• Propose additional design-oriented questions to assess power distribution, uniqueness of contributions, and participatory pathways.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Does a technological system centralize power through coordination, data extraction, or authority?
• RQ2 Does the system treat contributions and experiences as interchangeable or uniquely essential?
• RQ3 Does the system open up avenues for participation, and are those avenues mobilizing or demobilizing?
• RQ4 How can mutual aid and other non-scaling practices inform the design of collaborative work systems?

Key findings

• Scale thinking treats scalability as a moral good and centers quantification and modularization of inputs.
• Scaling promotes interchangeable units and a homogenized user base, often at the expense of marginalized groups.
• Mutual aid presents a viable resistive paradigm by prioritizing relationships and localized, non-scaling organization.
• Bed-Stuy Strong exemplifies technology augmenting social ties rather than enabling rapid, wide-scale expansion.
• The authors adapt Spade’s four reform questions and add three system-focused questions to guide evaluative design work.