How I learned to appreciate our tame social scientist: experiences in integrating design research and the behavioural sciences
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,189 views
Designing solutions for complex behaviour change processes can be greatly aided by integrating insights from the behavioural sciences into design practice. However, this integration is hampered by the relative inaccessibility of behavioural scientific knowledge. Working in a multidisciplinary of design researchers and behavioural scientists may bridge the gap between the two fields. This paper shares our experiences in working as such a multidisciplinary group on a large project, amongst others consisting of the design of interventions for workplace safety. Our cooperation was fruitful, both for design researchers – being able to better structure the messiness of the design process, behavioural scientists – gaining in ecological validity of their methods , and commissioners – increased trust in potential outcomes of the design process. However, difficulties preventing synergy also transpired.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to How I learned to appreciate our tame social scientist: experiences in integrating design research and the behavioural sciences
Similar to How I learned to appreciate our tame social scientist: experiences in integrating design research and the behavioural sciences (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
How I learned to appreciate our tame social scientist: experiences in integrating design research and the behavioural sciences
- 1. How I learned to appreciate our tame social scientist: experiences in integrating design research and the behavioural sciences Sander Hermsen, Remko van der Lugt, Sander Mulder, Reint Jan Renes
- 2. Chindōgu
- 3. Undesired Chindōgu: the danger of implicit user models
- 4. Why inform designs with theory from behavioural sciences? More effective (we know from evidence) Avoids cherry picking Increases decisional accountability
- 10. Multidisciplinary cooperation enhances the efficacy of behaviour change design projects Hypothesis
- 11. But: colliding world views Atomistic Seeking underlying working mechanisms Theory accepted or refuted Truth
- 12. But: colliding world views Holistic Seeking what works in the current context Theory can be bent and stretched Reality
- 13. Hypothesis Multidisciplinary cooperation enhances the efficacy of behaviour change design projects: Truth + Reality
- 14. Case study: Increasing safety motivation
- 15. The Persuasive by Design Model In every phase. Information: structuring interviews, analysis of current interventions Ideation: defining target behaviours, structuring ‘drifting’ Build: guarding operationalization Evaluation: devising viable measurement instruments
- 16. Mixing designerly methods with behavioural insights
- 17. Danger!
- 18. Safety
- 19. Where the behavioural scientific method fell short
- 21. Successes designer: model / theory as anchoring, scaffold for validity and reliability behavioural scientist: theory in rich context, increased ecological validity commissioner: sense of trust
Editor's Notes
- I would like to start my presentation with the great Japanese tradition of Chindogu. Who here has heard of this phenomenon? It’s the noble art of solving a problem by replacing it with an even bigger problem. How to gather drinking water, what to do when your noodles are too hot, what to do when you have a runny nose, or you have a dirty floor AND a baby, well… Chindogu is of course a brilliant technique for evaluating user needs and user experience. But in this case it serves as a metaphor, of course: designing for behavioural change without evidence base might work, but why does it work? And often, it does not work, and you end up with unwanted chindogu
- Why do failures happen? Every design process has implicit assumptions about who the user is and what characterizes him or her. Sometimes, this works, often, it leads to failures or surprises
- how to avoid chindogu when unwanted? Evidence says: interventions are more effective when based on theory from behavioural science; mostly because it avoids cherry picking caused by implicit user models. Also: increases decisional accountability for designers: better atexplaining decisions to commissioners
- but which theory? design researchers tend to choose what fits them see this paper on ‘persuasive tech’ which is in fact design for beh change by means of digital tech 12x TTM! but, as a behavioural scientist, I know this theory was refuted.
- Papers discrediting TTM
- Papers discrediting TTM
- Papers discrediting TTM
- we say: multidisciplinary collaboration. mix designers w behav scientists. problem: colliding worldviews designers: holistic, context, black box; theory can be kneaded into what you need, what fits: reality. problem: replicability, validity: how to make it work over different contexts? How to know why your design does what it does? behav scientists: atomistic, working mechanisms; theory is either accepted or refuted: truth problem: taking context into account, ecological validity: : does it work in the real, dirty world? truth vs reality. does this work? in that case, has potential to greatly enhance both fields. if not: missed chances and failures, and more chindogu
- we say: multidisciplinary collaboration. mix designers w behav scientists. problem: colliding worldviews designers: holistic, context, black box; theory can be kneaded into what you need, what fits: reality. problem: replicability, validity: how to make it work over different contexts? How to know why your design does what it does? behav scientists: atomistic, working mechanisms; theory is either accepted or refuted: truth problem: taking context into account, ecological validity: : does it work in the real, dirty world? truth vs reality. does this work? in that case, has potential to greatly enhance both fields. if not: missed chances and failures, and more chindogu
- we say: multidisciplinary collaboration. mix designers w behav scientists. problem: colliding worldviews designers: holistic, context, black box; theory can be kneaded into what you need, what fits: reality. problem: replicability, validity: how to make it work over different contexts? How to know why your design does what it does? behav scientists: atomistic, working mechanisms; theory is either accepted or refuted: truth problem: taking context into account, ecological validity: : does it work in the real, dirty world? truth vs reality. does this work? in that case, has potential to greatly enhance both fields. if not: missed chances and failures, and more chindogu
- truth vs reality. Could this work? If it does, has potential to greatly enhance both fields. if not: missed chances and failures, and more chindogu
- case study in 1 project, part of greater range of projects. touchpoints, integrating behavioural insights into designerly practice. this case: NAM – safety ownership and motivation for maintenance workers on natural gas drilling plants (see paper for more elaborate description)
- used Persuasive by Design model, see medium post and earlier publications, to structure insights from user research and literature studies. on the one hand: method was very helpful to think in terms of automatic and controlled processes on the other hand: designerly thinking (metaphors) also very helpful
- one such metaphor: diving. transition zone, one eample of intervention: entering dangerous area normally automatic, disrupted by ‘hard’ transition
- Entry to dangerous work area
- Back to the safety of the changing rooms area
- whistleblowing-problem. Zooming in on behaviour only does not work without taking systemic factors into account
- the differences between the disciplines sometimes made it hard to understand and appreciate the other's viewpoints. Behavioural scientists found designers vague and elusive: what philosopher? what’s he got to do with this? designers found behavioural scientists naive: you do realise all behaviour takes place in a social practice, don’t you? can’t just focus on behaviour alone. Focus on ‘does it work?' vs focus on ‘why does it work here and does that generalize?' real vs true. once again.
- success: for designer: model as a scaffold for validity, to make sure a design reaches it initial purpose for commissioner: sense of trust. these people know what they are doing For behavioural scientist: placing theory in a rich context, increases ecological validity Why a success? Balance in the group Hybrid tem members who know about both roles
- thank you. questions?