skip to main content
10.1145/3313831.3376545acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access
Best Paper

On Being Iterated: The Affective Demands of Design Participation

Published:23 April 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Iteration is a central feature of most HCI design methods, creating as it does opportunities for engagements with stakeholder groups. But what does iteration demand of those groups? Under what conditions do iterative engagements arise, and with what stakes? Building on experiences with Aboriginal Australian communities, and drawing on feminist and decolonial thinking, we examine the nature of iteration for HCI and how it frames encounters between design and use, with a focus on the affective dimension of engagement in iterative design processes.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a418-dourish-presentation.mp4

References

  1. Ahmed, S. 2012. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. 2017. Living a Feminist Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali, S. M. 2016. A Brief Introduction to Decolonial Design. ACM XRDS, 22(4), 16--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ames, M. 2019. The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death and Legacy of One Laptop Per Child. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailie, R. S. and Runcie, M. J. 2001. Household infrastructure in aboriginal communities and the implications for health improvement. Medical Journal of Australia, 175(7), 363--366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Baumer, E. and Silberman, M. 2011. When the Implication is Not to Design (Technology). Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2011 (Vancouver, BC), 2271--2274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardzell, J. and Bardzell, S. 2015. The User Reconfigured: On Subjectivities of Information. Proc. Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference: Critical Alternatives, 133--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bidwell, N. 2016. Decolonising HCI and Interaction Design Discourse: Some considerations in planning AfriCHI. ACM XRDS, 22(4), 22--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Brereton, M. and Buur, J. 2008. New Challenges for design participation in the era of ubiquitous computing. Co-Design, 4(2), 101--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks, F. 1975. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Brooks, F. 1986. No Silver Bullet -- Essence and Accident in Software Engineering. Proceedings of the IFIP Tenth World Computing Conference, 1069--1076. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science B.V.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruckman, A., Karahalios, K., Kraut, R., Shehan Poole, E., Thomas, J. and Yardi, S. 2010. Revisiting research ethics in the facebook era: Challenges in emerging CSCW research. in Adjunct Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work ACM, Savannah, GA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Clifford, J. 2013. Returns: Becoming Indigenous in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J. 2009. Ethnicity, Inc. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. De la Cadena, M. and Blaser, M. (Eds). 2018. A World of Many Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. DiSalvo, C. 2012. Adversarial Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Dourish, P. 2018. The Allure and the Paucity of Design: Cultures of Design and Design in Culture. Human-Computer Interaction. DOI: 10.1080/07370024.2018.1469410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Dourish, P. 2019. User Experience as Legitimacy Trap. Interactions, 26(6), 46--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Dourish, P. and Mainwaring, S. 2012. Ubicomp's Colonial Impulse. Proc. ACM Conf. Ubiquitous Computing Ubicomp 2012 (Pittsburgh, PA), 133--142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Escobar, A. 1988. Power and Visibility: Development and the Invention and Management of the Third World. Cultural Anthropology, 3(4), 428--443.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Escobar, A. 2018. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferguson, J. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: Developed, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Fiesler, C., Young, A., Peyton, T., Bruckman, A., Gray, M., Hancock, J., and Lutters, W. 2015. Ethics for Studying Online Sociotechnical Systems in a Big Data World. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 289--292Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Fry, T. 2012. Becoming Human by Design. London, UK: Bloomsbury.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Goyal, N., Miner, W., and Nawathe, N. 2012. Cultural differences across governmental website design. Proc. 4th international conference on Intercultural Collaboration (ICIC '12), 149--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Gupta, N., Medhi-Thies, I., Ferreira, P., O'Neill, J., and Cutrell, E. 2015. KrishiPustak: A Social Networking System for Low-Literate Farmers. Proc. 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW'15 Companion), 45--48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2685553.2702683Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Haggerty, K. 2004. Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27 (4). 391--414. DOI: 10.1023/B:QUAS.0000049239.15922.a3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Hancock, J. 2015. The Facebook Study: A Personal Account of Data Science, Ethics and Change. in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, 1--1. DOI: 10.1145/2675133.2697078Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Harding, S. (Ed). 1998. Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Haraway, D. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Hayes, G. 2011. The Relationship of Action Research to Human-Computer Interaction. ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interaction TOCHI, 18(3), 20pp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Irani, L., Vertesi, J., Dourish, P., Philip, K., and Grinter, R. 2010. Postcolonial Computing: A Lens on Design and Development. Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2010 (Atlanta, GA), 1311--1320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Juul, J. 2013. The Art of Failure: An Essay on the Pain of Playing Video Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Kyriakoullis, L. and Zaphiris, P. 2016. Culture and HCI: A Review of Recent Cultural Studies in HCI and Social Networks. Universal Access in the Information Society, 15(4), 629--642.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Lampe, C., Wash, R., Velasquez, A. and Ozkaya, E. 2010. Motivations to participate in online communities. Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2010 (Atlanta, GA), 1927--1936.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Land, C. 2015. Decolonizing Solidarity: Dilemmas and Directions for Supporters of Indigenous Struggles. London: Zed Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Lawrence, C. 2018. Digital Land Rights: Co-designing Technologies with Indigenous Australians. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/digital-landrights-co-designing-technologies-with-indigenousaustralians-99751Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Leong, T.W., Lawrence, C. and Wadley, G (2019) Designing for Diversity in Aboriginal Australia: Insights from a national technology project, in OZCHI'19 Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Fremantle, WA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Light, A., Wakeford, T., Egglestone, P., and Rogers, J. 2011. Research on an Equal Footing? A UK Collaborative Inquiry into Community and Academic Knowledge. Proc. Embracing Indigenous Knowledge Systems, Windhoek, Namibia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindtner, S., Bardzell, S., and Bardzell, J. 2018. Design and Intervention in the Age of ?No Alternative," Proceedings of the ACM Conference on HumanComputer Interaction - CSCW, Vol. 2, Article No. 109, November, 2018Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Manzini, E. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcuse, H. 1965. Repressive Tolerance. In Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore, Jr., and Herbert Marcuse, (Eds), A Critique of Pure Tolerance, 95--137, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 95--137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Markus, M. L. 1981. Toward a "critical mass" theory of interactive media: Universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research, 14(5), 491.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. McPherson, T. 2018. Feminist in a Software Lab: Difference and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Migolo, W. and Walsh, C. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concept, Analytics, Praxis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Mookg, D.R. 2012. Minimum Viable Product and the Importance of Experimentation in Technology Startups. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(3), 23--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Moran, C., Harrington, G., and Sheehan, N. 2018. On Country Learning. Design and Culture, 10(1), 71--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Morozov, E. 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York, NY: Public Affairs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Naumann, J. D. and Jenkins, A. M. 1982. Prototyping: the new paradigm for systems development. MIS Quarterly, 29--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Olson, J. and Kellogg, W. (Eds.) 2014. Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Parreñas, Juno Salazar. 2018. Decolonizing Extinction: The Work of Care in Orangutan Rehabilitation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Povinelli, E. 2011. Economies of Abandonment: Social Belonging and Endurance in Late Liberalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Preece, J. 2002. Supporting Community and Building Social Capital. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 36--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Raban, D., Moldovan, M., and Jones, Q. 2010. An empirical study of critical mass and online community survival. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 71--80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718932Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Rennie, E., Crouch, A., Thomas, J., and Taylor, P. 2010. Beyond public access? Reconsidering broadband for remote Indigenous communities. Communication, Politics & Culture, 43(1), 48--69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Rose, D. 2004. Reports from a Wild Country: Ethics for Decolonisation. Sydney, NSW: UNSW Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Schultz, T., Abdulla, D., Ansari, A., Canli, E., Keshavarz, M., Kiem, M., Prado de O. Martins, L., and Vieira de Oliveira, Pß. 2018. Editors' Introduction, Design and Culture, 10:1, 1--6, DOI: 10.1080/17547075.2018.1434367Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Scott, J. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Sharp, J. and Macklin, C. 2019. Iterate: Ten Lessons in Design and Failure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Simon, H. 1969. Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Sudar, S. and Anderson, R. 2015. DUCES: A Framework for Characterizing and Simplifying Mobile Deployments in Low-Resource Settings. Proc. 2015 Annual Symposium on Computing for Development (DEV '15), 23--30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2830629.2830653Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Taylor, A. 2011. Out There. Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2011, 685--694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Tonkinwise, C. 2015. Transition Design -- From and To What? Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), 85--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Tuck, E. and Yang, W. Decolonization is Not a Metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society, 1(1), 1--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Vatrapu, R. and Suthers, D. 2010. Cultural influences in collaborative information sharing and organization. Proc. 3rd international conference on Intercultural collaboration (ICIC '10), 161--170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Vempala, S., Chopra, N., Rajagopal, A., Nkengasong, J., and Akuro, S. 2016. C4G BLIS: Health Care Delivery via Iterative Collaborative Design in Resource-constrained Settings. Proc. Eighth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD '16), Article 21, 11 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2909609.2909657Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Verran, H. 2002. A Postcolonial Moment in Science Studies: Alternative Firing Regimes of Environmental Scientists and Aboriginal Landowners. Social Studies of Science, 32(5--6), pp.729--762.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Williams, R. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Winograd, T. and Flores, F. 1987. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Chivuno-Kuria, S., Kampuire, G., Bidwell, N., and Blake, E. 2010. Being Participated: A Community Approach. Proc. Participatory Design Conference PDF 2010 (Sydney, Australia), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Bidwell, N., and Blake, E. 2012. Community Consensus: Design Beyond Participation. Design Issues, 28(3), 89--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Wong, P. 2019. Biographies of a Sociological Type: "Marginal Men" in the Establishment of "Middle American" Anthropology. Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, published online 20 August. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jlca.12430Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Wong-Villacres, M., Arkaeep Kumar, A., Vishwanath, A., Karusala, N., DiSalvo, B., and Kumar, N. 2018. Designing for Intersections. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '18). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 45--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Zimmer, M. 2010. "But the data is already public": on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and information technology, 12 (4). 313--325. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-010--9227--5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. On Being Iterated: The Affective Demands of Design Participation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format