Implications for Adoption
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•392 views
Slide deck used to present the paper 'Implications for Adoption' at CHI 2017 (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3025742&CFID=933517649&CFTOKEN=13346229)
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Implications for Adoption
Similar to Implications for Adoption (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Implications for Adoption
- 2. WHAT’S YOUR NAME AND WHERE DO YOU COME FROM?
- 3. PETRA S
- 5. IN SHORT they ask MUST WE CARE? Chilana et al in ’From User Centered Design to Adoption Centered Design’ [2015] quoted by Lindley, Coulton and Sturdee in ‘Implications for Adoption’ [2017] tl;dr: YES
- 10. Image credit: Rossi, Rodriguez, dos Santos, A Dog Using Skype, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2995257.3012019 RESEARCH PROTOTYPES
- 11. CRITICAL SPECULATIVE DOG INTERNETS Image credits: Kirman, Lawson and Linehan, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4747039.v1
- 12. ADOPTION Image credit: Oliver Emberton, http://oliveremberton.com/2013/smash-your-smartphone-habit/
- 14. CONFESSION
- 15. WHAT do they look like? WHEN is appropriate? WHERE do they go? … ARE they useful? NEXT STEPS
- 16. TEES AVAILABLE AT THE MERCH STAND Image credit: shirtoid.com / hearmyshirt.com
- 17. QU EST ION S ? Image Credit: Banksy
Editor's Notes
- This paper is titled ‘implications for adoption’ It was authored by me – Joe Lindley – Professor Paul Coulton, and Miriam Sturdee We are all based at Lancaster University in the UK
- Lancaster is a small city in the North of England, and, like Denver sometimes has the backdrop of snow-capped peaks (although the highest we have in England comes in at 3,209 feet) These are various affiliated groups which are crucial to this research I and Miriam were students of the HighWire DTC HighWire hosted interdisciplinary PhDs in affiliation with the school of computing as well as the design-led research lab imagination Imagination is also where I and Paul currently work. Paul is Chair of Speculative and Game design there I am a RA on the PETRAS research hub...
- PETRAS is a £20m project researching the Internet of Things across 9 leading UK universities and over 70 partner organisations. This is the PETRAS logo.. Key shaped because, the project is, at the broadest level, looking at the security of IoT However, within that broad question, there are several thematic areas which PETRAS addresses One of these thematic areas is ‘adoption’ – and that is the theme that I and Paul help to run between Lancaster and Warwick Universities Within that research theme, over the 3 years the project runs for, our aim is to understand what factors are, or will in the future, influence the ‘adoption’ of IoT So, that is the background to this research.. Where it was done, and why. Now to get into the content of the paper itself…
- Although it may seem a little odd at first, the first thing I’d like to do is introduce the concept of ‘Someone else’s problem fields’ or ’SEPs’ These are a concept included in Douglas Adams’ satiritcal science fiction world of the HHGTTG In that Universe they are used to hide an alien space ship at a sports stadium Just to be clear, the SEPs are fiction. They are part of a Adams’ satirical space drama, but they are also a brilliant way to summarise the problem that this paper seeks to address. In essence, Adams says that any object around which an SEP is applied will cease to be noticed…. Issues that one may have problems understanding or accepting become ‘Somebody Elses’. These objects are not so much absent or invisible, but become unnoticed. when they're under the effects of an SEP. In the paper we suggest that the potential implications of the technologies we research are, oftentimes, veiled in a someone else’s problem field We argue that we, as a research community, have a tendency to cast the potential future adoption and implementation of our research as somebody else’s problem.
- Which… is not necessarily a “problem” Chiana et al’s 2015 CHI paper about ‘Adoption Centered Design’ opens with this passage: “As we increasingly strive for scientific rigor and generalizability in HCI research, should we entertain any hope that by doing good science, our discoveries will eventually be more transferrable to industry?” In short, they ask, ‘must we care’? [about the potential future adoption of the technology we are researching] Obviously, to a large degree, the answer to this depends on context But, as discussed in depth in the paper, our opinion is, in many cases, yes. We should care. We shouldn’t succumb to the tendency to conceptually keep the future at “arm’s length” We should learn to overcome the effects of the someone else’s problem field We should consider the “Implications for Adoption” related to our research topics [click] In the paper we construct a rhetorical argument for this, covering a few angles, but... too long; didn't read.. the answer, we say, is yes
- To exemplify some reasons why we feel we should care about adoption we use this diagram, which is based on Gartner’s hype cycle If you are unfamiliar with it… the hype cycle suggests that technology adoption often begins with…. Trigger Peak Trough Plateau Consider the ‘triggers’.. those are often the domains or fields we research (some example triggers from this this year’s program could stem from the papers on ‘using olfactory interfaces to influence mood’ or ‘mood tracking in call centres’ or ‘distinguishing tabletop users using touch pairs) The plateau is of course.. When a technology becomes stabilized, adopted, ubiquitous We use the hype cycle to show how various future-focused practices relate to one another, and to visualise what role Implications for Adoption should play in research
- We discuss various research-backed ways of conceiving of potential future adoption, such as technology exchange studies and the technology acceptance model These approaches represent ‘before the fact’ attempts to make a preemptive strike on the future…. While certainly useful for particular things – managing teams, innovation processes, and the delivery of specific corporate or commercial goals – the methods we looked at are somewhat constrained Although they’re related practices.... they barely consider adoption in the sense that we are interested in it Meanwhile in the reflective zone…..
- Sociological methods for understanding how technology is constructed, domesticated, and adopted do provide hugely rich accounts However, being backward looking reflective accounts these methods don’t do what we need them to
- Our conception of Implications for Adoption, then, is “something”… some kind of method…. ..A method which can be utilised whilst a technology is in the hype zone.. … but which produces insights more like what you might find for a technology which is in the reflective zone.. To use a phrase which I and colleagues developed to describe our research into a technique called “anticipatory ethnography”.. Implications for Adoption intend to “lend speculation the gravitas of hindsight” Which… one would hope… sounds like a reasonable thing to want to do… But how would you go about this? Why is it so important? How would you incorporate it into your next project? …
- .. Let’s just take a step back for a moment. We have a rich tradition of producing prototypes as part of our research, and using them, for example, to try and demonstrate how usable a particular concept is. In this example we see a prototypical mechanism allowing a dog to use Skype. Which is great! … it shows that it is possible to train a dog to trigger a phone call when it gets rewarded for doing so... It also shows and describes a particular mechanism for how this can be accomplished.. But it does not go beyond in any significant way... Assuming my role as ‘researcher in interested in adoption’ I ask myself ‘what does this research tell me about the potentia implicationsl for this technology to be adopted at a later stage?’ and, the answer is ’not a lot’.
- If we remain with the concept of interfaces for non-human animals… then we can consider this critical speculative work from Kirman, Lawson, and Linehan. The research describes a ‘CAPTCHA’ type device for canines. In the same way a robot finds it difficult to click in a box in the same way a human does – allowing Google’s captcha service to differentiate between humans and bots.... This system presents anal secretions to a canine user, via an interface they understand (the rear end of another dog), as a way of critically speculating about what a ‘dog internet’ might actually be. The intent behind this work is not so much about really exploring whether a dog internet, or a captcha device might be useful – but more about critiquing the solutionist trajectories of some research, such as, arguably, the previous example…. So... this work – and other similarly critical and speculative projects - look beyond simply building a prototype, and perhaps evaluating that prototype... But the intent isn’t really to appaer believable, or to explore potential adoption of the technology.... its more focused on a critique. So, in neither of the cases is are the technologies described in the research everyday, ubiquitous, commonplace, or domesticated.... Or, in other words real ‘adoption’ of these technologies is not articulated or explored with any significant weight behind what the implications might be for humans, animals, legislators, animal rights groups.... Or anyone really.
- Exploring adoption is different to demonstrating that a feat is possible (like the dog skype paper)… or being critical of what could happen (like the dog internet) A restaurant in New York was mystified in recent years when their sales were down. The place was booked up more than ever, and was running more efficiently than ever. The explanation was that customers had begun spending several minutes on their phones before even considering the menu. This is an unanticipated impact of technological adoption…and this is the sort of quality of insight we argue HCI research could (and sometimes should) be augmented with. This isn’t about shunning prototypes, they have their place. But it’s more about beginning the conversation about what might become of our prototypes in a future where they are adopted - what world would that be? [would it be one where this restaurant’s turnover is lower than it was previously] Who would live in it? What would it look like? So… the big question then, and the final section of the paper, is what we propose to do about it. Anyone familiar with my research profile knows that I’m advocate of Design Fiction… and that is the method by which we propose implications for adoption may be incorporated into suitable research projects, becoming part of those projects’ methods.
- There are, in fact, a whole bunch of design fictions which have been doing this already… but without explicitly saying “this is in order to explore implications for adoption”. It’s because of this delicate way that design fictions prototype both an idea, but the people who use it, and the world it exists within, that it’s a particularly apt tool for developing implications for adoption. In the paper we use a spectrum of design fiction examples and point to how each one – sometimes inadvertently – uses design fiction to articulate and explore implications for adoption. Game of Drones, which explores the implications of a future where local governments use UAVs for civic enforcement. Periodshare describes implications around the monetization of menstruation data. Uninvited Guests, shows the implications of smart devices tracking the health of an old man. A toaster for life shows the implications of modularity and recyclability in IoT design. Sans Duty articulates the implications of technologically enabled participatory budgeting. So… with this paper, alongside identifying and hoping to unshroud some of research from the SEP… we also hope to give a name to a particular type of design fiction, to give these projects a ‘home’ in HCI.
- While we do think this is important and achievable.. It is hard. The first version of this paper attempted to include an example Design Fiction and some indicative commentary… The speculation was around shape changing displays, and a game using that technology. It didn’t really work. We aimed, fired, and missed.. On this occasion. So… we acknowledge. It is hard. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable..
- So to wrap up… a few questions: what do implications for adoption look like? For anyone who embraces the arguments laid out, and appreciative of the suggestion to use design fiction, how should they proceed? there’s no ‘right way’ But DF seems like a good fit (although other methods may be fine too) The real answer to all of these questions is “that needs further research” As a close examination of the examples we cite will confirm, there is no ‘right way’ to use design fiction to do this, but, it certainly seems like a compelling tool fit for the purpose…. And as such, this means the answer to ‘what should these look like’ is “that needs further research”. We think these questions are good starting points for further enquiry, but the best way to see if there is value in implications for adoption… is to try it out. Try and make them! I would like to encourage anyone truly interested in the potential impact of their research, were it to be widely adopted in the future, to consider the paper, its argumentation, and the examples of design fiction… and, experiment. Only by doing that will we really see the value of this proposition. Of implications for design sections, it has been said that “These extremely polished pieces of text that do a wonderful job of not providing any reusable data, theory, or tools, yet manage to convince us that the implications are important” – although written as a critique.. this sentiment, is perhaps the most succinct explication of what researchers recognizing the importance of implications for adoption should aim to achieve – and our hope is that we’ve articulated that argument passionately, rigorously and clearly.
- This isn’t true. But… in a future where Implications for Adoption have themselves been adopted.. Perhaps we’ll sell some Someone Else’s Problem field T-shirts.
- Asking what the Implications for adoption for a given research program might be, has for a long time been considered someone else’s problem.. An elephant in the room. We suggest that design fiction can provide us with a means to shut down the someone else’s problem field generator. Questions?