Nick Taylor
Keith Cheverst
Patrick Olivier
ABSTRACT
As research increasingly turns to work 'in the wild' to design and evaluate technologies under real-world conditions, little consideration has been given to what happens when research ends. In many cases, users are heavily involved in the design process and encouraged to integrate the resulting technologies into their lives before they are withdrawn, while in some cases technologies are being left in place after research concludes. Often, little is done to assess the impact and legacy of these deployments. In this paper, we return to two examples in which we designed technologies with the involvement of communities and examine what steps were taken to ensure their long-term viability and what happened following the departure of researchers. From these examples, we provide guidelines for planning and executing technology handovers when conducting research with communities.
- Abowd, G. D. Classroom 2000: an experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment. IBM Systems Journal 38, 4 (1999), 508--530. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Brown, B., Reeves, S. and Sherwood, S. Into the wild: challenges and opportunities for field trial methods. Proc. CHI 2011, ACM (2011), 1657--1666. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carroll, J. M. The Blacksburg Electronic Village: a study in community computing. Proc. Digital Cities 2003, Springer (2003), 43--65. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carter, S., Mankoff, J., Klemmer, S. R., Matthews, T. Exiting the cleanroom: on ecological validity and ubiquitous computing. Human-Computer Interaction 23, 1 (2008), 47--99.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. Doing Action Research in Your Own Organisation. Sage, London, UK, 2001.Google Scholar
- Crabtree, A., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Tennent, P., Chalmers, M. and Brown, B. Supporting ethnographic studies of ubiquitous computing in the wild. Proc. DIS 2006, ACM (2006), 60--69. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dourish, P. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Foth, M. and Hearn, G. N. Networked individualism of urban residents: discovering the communicative ecology in inner-city apartment buildings. Information, Communication & Society 10, 5 (2007), 749--772.Google Scholar
- Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J. and Benford, S. Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proc. CHI 2003, ACM (2003), 233--240. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Kerridge, T., Boucher, A. and Jarvis, N. Anatomy of a failure: how we knew when our design went wrong, and what we learned from it. Proc. CHI 2009, ACM (2009), 2213--2222. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gurstein, M. Community informatics, community networks and strategies for flexible networking. Community Informatics: Shaping Computer-Mediated Social Relations, Routledge (2001), 263--283.Google Scholar
- Hayes, G. R. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 18, 3 (2011), 15. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hearn, G., Kimber, M., Lennie, J. and Simpson, L. A way forward: sustainable ICTs and regional sustainability. The Journal of Community Informatics 1, 2 (2006), 18--31.Google Scholar
- Hearn, G., Tacchi, J., Foth, M. and Lennie, J. Action Research and New Media: Concepts, Methods and Cases. Hampton Press, New York, NY, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
- Heyer, and Brereton, M. Design from the everyday: continuously evolving, embedded exploratory prototypes. Proc. DIS 2010, ACM (2010), 282--291. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B. B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., Eiderbäck, B., Lindquist, S. and Sundblad, Y. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. Proc. CHI 2003, ACM (2003), 17--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kidd, C. D., Orr, R., Abowd, G. D., Atkeson, C. G., Essa, I. A., MacIntyre, B. A., Mynatt, E., Starner, T. E. and Newstetter, W. The Aware Home: a living laboratory for ubiquitous computing research. Proc. CoBuild 1999, Springer (1999), 191--198. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marsden, G., Maunder, A. and Parker, M. People are people, but technology is not technology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 366, 1881 (2008), 3795--3804.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. Technology as Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Merkel, C. B., Xiao, L., Farooq, U., Ganoe, C. H., Lee, R., Carroll, J. M. and Rosson, M. B. Participatory design in community computing contexts. Proc. PDC 2004, ACM (2004), 1--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, C. M., Overgaard, M., Pedersen, M. B., Stage, J. and Stenild, S. It's worth the hassle!: the added value of evaluating the usability of mobile systems in the field. Proc. NordiCHI 2006, ACM (2006), 272--280. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norman, D. Signifiers, not affordances. Interactions 15, 6 (2008), 18--19. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Redhead, F. and Brereton M. A qualitative analysis of local community communications. Proc. OZCHI 2006, ACM (2006), 361--364. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rodden, T. and Crabtree, A. Domestic routines and design for the home. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 13, 2 (2004), 191--220. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rogers, Y., Connelly, K., Tedesco, L., Hazlewood, W., Kurtz, A., Hall, R. E., Hursey, J. and Toscos, T. Why it's worth the hassle: the value of in-situ studies when designing ubicomp. Proc. UbiComp 2007, Springer (2007), 336--353. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rogers, Y. Interaction design gone wild: striving for wild theory. Interactions 18, 4 (2011), 58--62. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Suchman, L. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Taylor, N. and Cheverst, K. Creating a rural community display with local engagement. Proc. DIS 2010, ACM (2010), 218--227. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Taylor, N. and Cheverst, K. Supporting community awareness with interactive displays. IEEE Computer 45, 5 (2012), 26--32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Taylor, N., Marshall, J., Blum-Ross, A., Mills, J., Rogers, J., Egglestone, P., Frohlich, D. M., Wright, P. and Olivier, P. Viewpoint: empowering communities with situated voting devices. Proc. CHI 2012, ACM (2012), 1361--1370. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wood, G., Lindsay, S., Olivier, P. and Marshall, J. Family Hedge: using principles of game design in a digital artefact. DIS 2012 Demos (2012).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Leaving the wild: lessons from community technology handovers
Recommendations
Understanding sustained community engagement: a case study in heritage preservation in rural argentina
CHI '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsHCI projects are increasingly evaluating technologies in the wild, which typically involves working with communities over extended periods, often with the goal of effecting sustainable change. However, there are few descriptions of projects that have ...
Community engagement for research: contextual design in rural CSCW system development
C&T '13: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and TechnologiesIn order to bring about innovation within a community-based context, different stakeholder communities often need to be engaged so that they may appropriately take part in the design process. The 'invisible' work of engagement is frequently overlooked, ...
Community Interaction and Conflict on the Web
WWW '18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web ConferenceUsers organize themselves into communities on web platforms. These communities can interact with one another, often leading to conflicts and toxic interactions. However, little is known about the mechanisms of interactions between communities and how ...
Comments