The document provides an overview of the course content and assignments for an emerging practices course. It outlines 12 weekly topics that will be covered, including technology and society, non-humans, speculative futures, social robots, human-robot interaction, adoption and diffusion, and co-design. Students will complete various assignments throughout the course, including analyses, evaluations, and a final synthesis report on emerging practices in 2050. The course aims to help students critically examine new technologies and their social implications through different theoretical lenses.

1. Emerging Practices 2019
#ctec702
Week 3
Ricardo Sosa
rsosa@aut.ac.nz
designcomputing

2. Weeks Content Activity To Do
1 Technology & Society In class analysis of an EP case
Reading 1 & Video 1;
CYOA a D&T kickstarter EP case
2 Non-humans (Artefacts) In class evaluation of 3Doodler Formative 1 due: Analysis of your EP case
3 Speculative Futures In class ideation session for future tech Formative 2 due: Evaluation of your EP case
4 Philosophies Presentations of your EP case: A-E-S & feedforward
Formative 3 due: Synthesis of your EP case
Videos of social robots (shortlist 12-6-3, justify)
5 Social Robots
In class initial analysis of videos; definitions and initial
impressions
Prepare notes and questions for crit session on Analysis
6 HRI; Social Cognition In class activity; crit session on your Analysis work Summative 1 due: Analysis report
7 Adoption and Diffusion Student presentations of themes emerging from Analysis Reading 2 & Video 2
8 From Analysis to Evaluation In class low-fi prototyping (Wizard of Oz technique)
9 Speculative Futures In class assessment of speculative designs Summative 2 due: Evaluation report
10 From Evaluation to Ideation Ideation techniques and formats Reading 3 & Video 3
11 Co-Design In class planning and running a Co-design workshop
12 Emergent Practices: 2050 Summative 3 due: Synthesis report

3. • “Technology can be judged for the ways in
which it can embody specific forms of power
and authority”
• Social determination vs technological
determinism
• “The theory of technological politics suggests
that we pay attention to the characteristics of
technical objects”
• “Most technologies that have political
consequences are those that transcend the
simple categories “intended” and “unintended”
altogether”
• “The technology deck has been stacked in
advance to favour certain social interests”
• “Specific features in the design of a technical
system… seemingly innocuous design features”

4. • “Both household labor and market labor are
today performed with tools that can be neither
manufactured nor understood by the workers
who use them”
• “Those implements are much more likely to
have been made by persons and in locales that
are totally foreign to their eventual users”
• “Houseworkers are alienated from the tools”
• “Tools are not passive… tools alter our domestic
work process as well as the emotional
entanglements”
• “… for whom? Under what conditions?”
• “determined partly by the decisions of
individuals but also partly by social processes
over which they have had no control”

5. • “Intentional fallacy”: the meaning of a
text lies in the author’s intention
• The “designer fallacy”: a designer-god
can design into a technology, its purposes
and uses
• Humans and non-humans in a “dance of
agency”
• Affordances of technology, materiality
• Indeterminacy of multiple uses
• Both the designer-materiality relation,
and the artifact-user relations are
complex and multistable
• The design process must be seen to be
fallibilistic and contingent

6. Amara’s Design Law: “The early applications of a new technology
are myopic and often plain stupid, meaningful and useful
applications take a while to develop”
EXPECTATIONS

7. EXPECTATIONS
http://rodneybrooks.com/forai-domo-arigato-mr-roboto/
“There will be much more
that comes from AI and
robotics. For those who are
able to see through what
is hype and what is real
there are going to be great
opportunities.”

8. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/hannah-arendt-would/
Hannah Arendt
• There is no reason to doubt our (tech) abilities.
The question is only how we wish to use our
technical knowledge… and this question cannot
be decided by scientific means; it is a human
question of the first order
• Every person has the capacity of beginning
something anew
• The things that owe their existence to men
nevertheless constantly condition their human
makers
• Value is the quality a thing can never possess in
privacy but acquires automatically the moment it
appears in public
• Spare time is never spent in anything but
consumption, and the more left, the greedier and
more craving his appetites.

9. “We are surrounded by things more permanent than the activity by which they were produced, and potentially even more
permanent than the lives of their authors” Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. p.96

10. “Treating all use objects as though they were consumer goods, so that a chair or a table is now consumed as rapidly as a
dress and a dress used up as quickly as food” Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. p.124

11. https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/hannah-arendt-would/
Hannah Arendt
• Machines are different. Unlike tools, which at
every moment remain servants of the hand, the
machines demands that the labourer serve them,
that he adjust to them
• The question is not so much whether we are the
masters or the slaves of our machines… it has
become as senseless to describe this world of
machines in terms of means and ends as it has
always been senseless to ask Nature if she
produced the seed to produce a tree or the tree
to produce the seed.

12. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540

13. “And lastly I’ve realized, in experimenting with this
device, that I also kind of have a nervous tic. The cell
phone is – yeah, you have to look down on it and all that,
but it’s also kind of a nervous habit…” Sergey Brin
… this exercise definitely made me realise to what extent.
We’ve added on about 10 extra steps to being able
to play the piano just by purchasing this “helpful”
and “assisting” product.
- As it is meant to replace your need to have your
phone out it is meant to immerse you in your own life,
so are the glasses the best way to do that?
- We see lots of adventure footage, do they stay on
your head even when in extreme activities?
- What are the issues around privacy?

14. Evaluation (formative)
• Formulate 2-3 questions from your
analysis of the kickstarter EP case
• Think of ways in which you could
test those ideas:
• Do the assumptions behind the
technology hold?
• Are those realistic uses of the tech?
• Are those appropriate users?
• What may the likely/unlikely impacts
be?
• What scenarios can you imagine?

15. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/720376666/herbot-automatic-home-gardening-system-you
Herbot: Automatic Indoor Gardening Robot
1
Name “Herbot” makes reference to herbs
(planetnatural.com/herb-gardening-guru/types)
then refers to gardening and see later claims
about food in general. It’s commonplace to see
exaggerated claims, mixing scales, and making
grandiose visions from only one small device.
3
Is this a “robot”? The URL
uses “system” but the
project became a robot.
Also “automatic” is an
interesting addition: aren’t
robots automatic? What
really is automatic or
robotic about this
hydroponics watering
system? Why is the term
“hydroponic” hidden?
2 “Indoor” indicates the focus on urban
living spaces that are increasingly
small especially in high-density cities.
This product appeals to a “return to
Nature” with references to healthier
and more pure living, a key paradox
4
Peculiar design decision: a glass enclosure
that isolates most sensorial qualities of
gardening and frames the presence of
Nature in an otherwise artificial setting,
alludes to similar tensions in Sci-Fi:
5 A peculiarly poorly done
psd edition of these
graphics
6 Clear clues that indirectly point to a type of users: frame
sitting on the floor, books used as bookcase. Also, is that an
empty pot on the wooden block?

17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOcMVmR8ziE

18. “you have to learn how to read your plants” (4:40)

20. Indoor gardening: SPACE

21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Merleau-Ponty#/media/File:Maurice_Merleau-Ponty.jpg
Maurice Merleau-Ponty

22. Evaluation (formative)
• Creatively think* of low-fidelity strategies to prototype/test those
ideas
• What aspects of the technology can you simulate in one afternoon?
• Who could you ask about their views on this tech?
• Can you think of a way to prototype an experience that informs your
assessment of the technology?
• Are there features that you can “live on” for a few days?
• It’s not about testing alternatives (yet), it’s about play testing
some key aspects of the new technology and the emergent
practices (and meanings)
In a Merleau-Ponty way: “living on” the prototype, “communing with” the ideas

23. Evaluation (formative)
Things I could do to test the Herbot/Plantui idea (Automatic Indoor
Garden):
• Build a cardboard model (volumetric) to ask SPATIAL questions: where would
a Herbot/Plantui live in the house? What size? Visibility and access? Meaning
and messages that the Herbot/Plantui send.
• How does it feel to have plants in a glass enclosure?
• How do people read their plants? How do they communicate with plants?
What information/feedback could be useful?
• What are the types of incentives for types of users to grow indoor plants?
• What stops people who intend to grow indoor plants to do it?
• What makes children interested in growing plants?
• SOCIAL questions of growing plants…

24. Rubric
(Analysis)
Insufficient (D) Incomplete (C) Adequate (B) Exceptional (A)
Clarity Poor readability makes the
report hard to follow, the
main ideas are unclear, and
argument is difficult to
assess.
Limited writing, flaws make it
difficult to read, and many ideas
are unclear.
Readable and mostly easy to
follow and understand. Some
limitations with language.
Engaging to read, memorable and
persuasive, easy to follow and
understand the main arguments.
Frames new questions and reveals
assumptions clearly.
Criticality
(LO1)
Impersonal, uncritical,
remains descriptive without
evidence of analysis. Fails to
identify claims, messages,
and agendas in how the case
study is defined and its
purpose and values
embedded.
Timid analysis, some critical
approximations to deconstruct
how the device is defined and
perceived by the creators and/or
users or experts. Misses
opportunities to “read between
the lines” and seems to take
things at face value.
Mostly a complete analysis
showing a personal approximation
at the case study, cites and
interprets specific statements and
images. Misses some sources or
details which leads to a somehow
limited understanding of the
purpose of this device.
A personal take on the case,
identifies overt as well as concealed
messages that help reveal an
insightful understanding of the
purpose of this device, and the
values it embodies. Reveals issues
and dimensions that are grounded in
the analysis and aren’t immediately
obvious.
Validity
(LO2)
Uninformed, arbitrary,
improvised, lacks relevant or
credible sources. No
triangulation of ideas, no
connection and no
elaboration of meanings
about this device.
Some sources but some lack
relevance or credibility.
Insufficient connection and
triangulation of ideas, reads
superficial due to weak sources.
Missed opportunities to go offline
and source ideas from
experienced people or relevant
events.
Mostly relevant and credible
sources, including authoritative
and genuine voices. Some
triangulation of ideas between
sources. Most of the arguments in
the analysis are supported
adequately either directly or by
the student interpreting and
building upon sources.
Identified and triangulated ideas
from a range of sources, revealed
new meanings from relevant and
authentic information. The key
arguments in the analysis are
strongly supported by sources either
directly drawing from them, or by
insightful views and interpretations
of them by the student.