After being to CHI and another gathering of HCI related people in the last few weeks, I have to share one reflection. I am not sure that my observation and definitely not my interpretation is correct or not, so comments are welcome.
The observation is that the field of HCI research is growing in size but also in scope. What today is considered to be HCI research spans a far wider area than every before. HCI today includes research that traditionally might have been seen as engineering (for instance, design and development of devices and systems with the purpose to explore technical possibilities), it also includes research that traditionally would be seen as within the social sciences or behavioral sciences (the latter has of course always have been part of HCI), but also research that can be considered humanistic or cultural studies, political or global studies. The research has also expanded in scope when it comes to application areas such as education, health care, transportation, entertainment, sustainability, etc.
This expansion of the field is of course exciting and has led to new perspectives and new knowledge that has enriched HCI. However, at the same time I am concerned by this development. It is possible to see this development as an expansion that leaves an empty space in the middle.
I would argue that a large part of todays HCI research could and maybe should be seen as research in other disciplines. For instance, research related to education should be evaluated and published in educational research venues and contribute to that field unless there is also a serious contribution to the core of HCI. This of course raises the question of what is the core of HCI.
If research in HCI do not in any sense contribute to our understand of human computer interaction in some general or universal sense, and if it is only an application of what we already know in yet another field, then it may be a contribution to that application field but not to HCI. So, if someone applies HCI theory and knowledge (whatever that is) in another field to explore and examine a phenomena without bringing back some serious insights to HCI theory and knowledge then it is not HCI research.
What this type of expansion leads to is unfortunately in many cases research that do not contribute in a serious way to the core of HCI while also being questionable research in relation to what is the standard in the "other" field. If the research really contributed to those other fields then the research should be evaluated and published in those fields.
Ok, I understand that this argument raises a lot of issues especially around the notion of what is the core of HCI research but I see it as important for our field to discuss those issues if we want to be able to produce knowledge contributions that are distinct and valuable in relation to the contributions from other disciplines. HCI research is not going to be successful or recognized by how it is doing research or by how it is able to "use" knowledge from other fields, it will only be successful if there is a core knowledge contribution that is of a kind that no other field really cares about or produces knowledge about. HCI research will not become successful by expanding the field, not by approaching and including more application areas and topics. HCI research will only be successful if we can offer something valuable at the core that constitute well developed knowledge that no other discipline has done or will do, and that can be valued by its own merits.
Showing posts with label CHI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHI. Show all posts
CHI 2014 -- will it be the same or something new, and what does an answer really mean?
There are only a few days before CHI 2014 in Toronto. CHI is the largest and most important HCI conference in the world. It is also the most well organized conference I have ever been to. The value of CHI is, since it covers the whole field of HCI research, that it is the place where you can get a sense of what is going on, what are the new trends and ideas. Individual papers and presentations are to me less interesting than the way the whole conference moves, shifts and transforms. These shifts and changes are not always visible from year to year, but as soon as you take a longer view (I think even three years is long enough) you start to see that the field is constantly evolving. I get convinced that the changes are bigger and faster than most people believe when I talk to colleagues who have not been to CHI for a few years and have some strong opinions about the conference and you realize that their image of it does not correspond to what you experience.
However, there are of course two ways to think about this. I am convinced that the field, and with that CHI, changes every year, but what is the nature of the change? It might be that it is a superficial change that leave the foundational level the same. Is that the case? Is this what some colleagues mean when they are argue that CHI does not change. Is our field staying the same, being conservative? Is the recognition and glorification of the "new" really about something "new" or is it only a form of changes that leave the overall "project" safe, stable and the same? I am not sure. If anyone has some good answers please let me know...
However, there are of course two ways to think about this. I am convinced that the field, and with that CHI, changes every year, but what is the nature of the change? It might be that it is a superficial change that leave the foundational level the same. Is that the case? Is this what some colleagues mean when they are argue that CHI does not change. Is our field staying the same, being conservative? Is the recognition and glorification of the "new" really about something "new" or is it only a form of changes that leave the overall "project" safe, stable and the same? I am not sure. If anyone has some good answers please let me know...
Artifact analysis, Bill Buxton, and the power of artifact inventories, compendiums, collections
I have many times on my blog made the case for a more artifact oriented approach in HCI research. One reason, among many, is that our discipline is not paying enough attention to the actual artifacts/systems that constitute the core and the reason for existence of our field.
So, developing ways to carefully study interactive artifacts and systems in a way that can lead to theoretical development is crucial. I truly enjoy the traditional philosophical method of going back and forth between theoretical definitions and concrete examples. The purpose of this process is to increase the precision in the theoretical definitions through a step by step refinement so that they at the end capture the important qualities of the artifacts.
To be able to conduct such research you need concrete examples of artifacts. One approach is to work with highly diverse individual artifacts that present definitional challenges, but it is also good to have more comprehensive collections of artifacts that can serve as a foundation or horizon for individual examples to be compared and contrasted.
For instance, today I saw this compendium or collection of cameras (in some chronological order). A collection like this can be seen as an example of such a foundation or horizon of artifacts. In the article the author engages in some straightforward and fairly preliminary artifact analysis. It is clear that the collection, with its selections and structure, is itself an expression of some theoretical definitions and even postulates about what constitute this type of artifact and its primary qualities.
It would be great to see more collections like this in our field. Bill Buxton has done a remarkable job with his collection. However, the Buxton collection can be seen as "raw data" for those who want to engage in more intentional artifact analysis. For instance, just take a look at the collection of different types of 'mouse' artifacts. It is an exciting collection, highly diverse when it comes to form, function, material, etc. that can lead to exciting questions such as: What has changed over the years? What count as a mouse today?
Anyway, this post was not meant to be this long. I really just wanted to link the the very nice collection of cameras :-)
So, developing ways to carefully study interactive artifacts and systems in a way that can lead to theoretical development is crucial. I truly enjoy the traditional philosophical method of going back and forth between theoretical definitions and concrete examples. The purpose of this process is to increase the precision in the theoretical definitions through a step by step refinement so that they at the end capture the important qualities of the artifacts.
To be able to conduct such research you need concrete examples of artifacts. One approach is to work with highly diverse individual artifacts that present definitional challenges, but it is also good to have more comprehensive collections of artifacts that can serve as a foundation or horizon for individual examples to be compared and contrasted.
For instance, today I saw this compendium or collection of cameras (in some chronological order). A collection like this can be seen as an example of such a foundation or horizon of artifacts. In the article the author engages in some straightforward and fairly preliminary artifact analysis. It is clear that the collection, with its selections and structure, is itself an expression of some theoretical definitions and even postulates about what constitute this type of artifact and its primary qualities.
It would be great to see more collections like this in our field. Bill Buxton has done a remarkable job with his collection. However, the Buxton collection can be seen as "raw data" for those who want to engage in more intentional artifact analysis. For instance, just take a look at the collection of different types of 'mouse' artifacts. It is an exciting collection, highly diverse when it comes to form, function, material, etc. that can lead to exciting questions such as: What has changed over the years? What count as a mouse today?
Anyway, this post was not meant to be this long. I really just wanted to link the the very nice collection of cameras :-)
Some notes on ACM Interactions and the CHI community
As some of you may know, together with Ron Wakkary, I have been the Editor-in-Chief now for the ACM Interactions magazine for more than two years. It has been a great experience in so many ways. We have tried to give newcomers to the field, from both academia and industry, an opportunity to share their experiences, knowledge and insights, while also bring in the most distinguished names in the field to share their expertise. ACM has also been instrumental in developing a new website for the magazine, that is now slowly becoming a core part of Interactions.
After having worked with Interactions for a while, it is clear to me that there is need for this form intermediary type of publication between research publications and trade journals. First of all, Interactions is not peer reviewed. This means we can publish new perspectives and ideas that would be almost impossible to get published in traditional conferences and journals. If you take a look at ACM Interactions over time, it is clear that many new "trends" were published much earlier in Interactions than anywhere else. It is also important to a field that has a major focus on professional development to get input from professionals and the industry.
Of course, this double purpose means that a magazine such as ACM Interactions suffers in other ways. For instance, researchers do not necessarily see it worth the trouble to publish in the magazine since it does not "count" as a scientific publication. At the same time professionals may still find the magazine too academic and not enough in resonance with and relevant to their professional reality.
My personal belief is that HCI as an academic discipline and as manifested in the major conferences (CHI, DIS, NordiCHI, etc) has taken on the purpose and goal to improve practice and use. This means that HCI has a strong focus on professional development, building knowledge and tools for practitioners for design and for understanding use. (This is of course not the only purpose that a field like HCI can adopt, more about that somewhere else.) The SIGCHI community is a blended community of researchers and professionals. Such a blended community is unique and something that very few other academic disciplines have. This focus on professional development makes it crucial to have venues where knowledge about practice can flow both ways, from academia to practice and from practice to academia.
To me, ACM Interactions is today a venue that subscribe to that purpose and does fairly good. It can be done much better and we are trying to move in that direction. For instance, it is crucial to have the best thinkers in the field write about their ideas in a way that makes it accessible to any researcher and practitioner in the field. It is also crucial to have professionals to write about their experiences in a way that points to under-researched areas and that present insights that can only emerge from being fully engaged in practice over time, which is something that researcher are not able to do.
All these different goals and conditions make it s difficult to make a magazine like ACM Interactions successful. It is all about balancing conflicting desires and needs from many stakeholders (as any design project). The key is to design something that does not become a dull compromise but raises above the conflicting interests and add value to all stakeholders.
[As a foot note I want to mention a few things about Interactions:
-- We are seeing a steady and increasing flow of submissions. Even though Interactions is not peer reviewed, the acceptance rate is going down.
-- We are still not sure that we are covering the whole breadth of HCI and are strongly inviting those who feel that Interactions does not cover their aspect of HCI to submit to us.
-- We are always looking for professionals that want to contribute to the discussion about the field to submit.
-- We also do want Interactions to be a place for discussion and debate, so we welcome comments and feedback on existing articles.]
After having worked with Interactions for a while, it is clear to me that there is need for this form intermediary type of publication between research publications and trade journals. First of all, Interactions is not peer reviewed. This means we can publish new perspectives and ideas that would be almost impossible to get published in traditional conferences and journals. If you take a look at ACM Interactions over time, it is clear that many new "trends" were published much earlier in Interactions than anywhere else. It is also important to a field that has a major focus on professional development to get input from professionals and the industry.
Of course, this double purpose means that a magazine such as ACM Interactions suffers in other ways. For instance, researchers do not necessarily see it worth the trouble to publish in the magazine since it does not "count" as a scientific publication. At the same time professionals may still find the magazine too academic and not enough in resonance with and relevant to their professional reality.
My personal belief is that HCI as an academic discipline and as manifested in the major conferences (CHI, DIS, NordiCHI, etc) has taken on the purpose and goal to improve practice and use. This means that HCI has a strong focus on professional development, building knowledge and tools for practitioners for design and for understanding use. (This is of course not the only purpose that a field like HCI can adopt, more about that somewhere else.) The SIGCHI community is a blended community of researchers and professionals. Such a blended community is unique and something that very few other academic disciplines have. This focus on professional development makes it crucial to have venues where knowledge about practice can flow both ways, from academia to practice and from practice to academia.
To me, ACM Interactions is today a venue that subscribe to that purpose and does fairly good. It can be done much better and we are trying to move in that direction. For instance, it is crucial to have the best thinkers in the field write about their ideas in a way that makes it accessible to any researcher and practitioner in the field. It is also crucial to have professionals to write about their experiences in a way that points to under-researched areas and that present insights that can only emerge from being fully engaged in practice over time, which is something that researcher are not able to do.
All these different goals and conditions make it s difficult to make a magazine like ACM Interactions successful. It is all about balancing conflicting desires and needs from many stakeholders (as any design project). The key is to design something that does not become a dull compromise but raises above the conflicting interests and add value to all stakeholders.
[As a foot note I want to mention a few things about Interactions:
-- We are seeing a steady and increasing flow of submissions. Even though Interactions is not peer reviewed, the acceptance rate is going down.
-- We are still not sure that we are covering the whole breadth of HCI and are strongly inviting those who feel that Interactions does not cover their aspect of HCI to submit to us.
-- We are always looking for professionals that want to contribute to the discussion about the field to submit.
-- We also do want Interactions to be a place for discussion and debate, so we welcome comments and feedback on existing articles.]
CHI reviewing: Some reflections
Reviewing for a quality conference such as CHI is an excellent way to find out what is going on in the field. What is even more beneficial is that I have to read things I would never otherwise read. I promised to review 8 papers this year since I felt bad being on several submitted papers. (We should all pay our dues by reviewing at least as many papers as we submit.)
Anyway, I have now reviewed all of them (well, working on the last one). One interesting aspect that I saw in many of the papers is a mismatch between the way theory is said to be used and how it is actually used.
The typical mistake looks like this. The authors start with an introduction, usually quite good. Then comes the "theory" part, also in many cases surprisingly good. Several papers have impressed me by taking on quite ambitious theoretical perspectives in relation to their research. In some cases I read excellent reviews of existing theory with quite interesting reflections on how it relates to the topic in question. But then the problems start. In almost all the papers, after the theory has been introduced, it disappears. It is seldom possible to find any trace of the theory in the study or experiment that is usually the core of the paper. The analysis and interpretation of the results and findings are not at all done based on or informed by the theory. Another problem is that the authors do not return to the theory at the end of the paper. The findings does not lead to any revisiting of the theory or to any reflections of the use of the theory, for instance, in relation to how well it worked or what the theory failed to support.
I find it ok if researchers use a theory as a tool, that is how I see theories myself. They are tools that can help us to describe and analyze something. So, it is fine if the research does not necessary lead to any final or revolutionary reflections on the theory used, or to any form theoretical development (even though if that is the case the paper usually becomes quite boring). However, it is definitely not necessary to introduce a theory or a conceptual framework in a paper if it is not used in the actual research process. If it is not used, why do we have to read about it?
This means that many papers start out with grand plans on a fairly advanced theoretical level while it ends on a low practical level that in no way correspond to the claims and issues introduced in the beginning. It would be wonderful to read a paper once that had the opposite structure, that is, that started out with a simple and practical problem but ended in an advanced discussion about theoretical implications and developments. Maybe they are our there. Maybe I just did not get any to review this year.
[In a paper by me and Mikael Wiberg we discuss the idea of teory driven research as an opportunity for improvement in HCI research, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07370020903586696]
Anyway, I have now reviewed all of them (well, working on the last one). One interesting aspect that I saw in many of the papers is a mismatch between the way theory is said to be used and how it is actually used.
The typical mistake looks like this. The authors start with an introduction, usually quite good. Then comes the "theory" part, also in many cases surprisingly good. Several papers have impressed me by taking on quite ambitious theoretical perspectives in relation to their research. In some cases I read excellent reviews of existing theory with quite interesting reflections on how it relates to the topic in question. But then the problems start. In almost all the papers, after the theory has been introduced, it disappears. It is seldom possible to find any trace of the theory in the study or experiment that is usually the core of the paper. The analysis and interpretation of the results and findings are not at all done based on or informed by the theory. Another problem is that the authors do not return to the theory at the end of the paper. The findings does not lead to any revisiting of the theory or to any reflections of the use of the theory, for instance, in relation to how well it worked or what the theory failed to support.
I find it ok if researchers use a theory as a tool, that is how I see theories myself. They are tools that can help us to describe and analyze something. So, it is fine if the research does not necessary lead to any final or revolutionary reflections on the theory used, or to any form theoretical development (even though if that is the case the paper usually becomes quite boring). However, it is definitely not necessary to introduce a theory or a conceptual framework in a paper if it is not used in the actual research process. If it is not used, why do we have to read about it?
This means that many papers start out with grand plans on a fairly advanced theoretical level while it ends on a low practical level that in no way correspond to the claims and issues introduced in the beginning. It would be wonderful to read a paper once that had the opposite structure, that is, that started out with a simple and practical problem but ended in an advanced discussion about theoretical implications and developments. Maybe they are our there. Maybe I just did not get any to review this year.
[In a paper by me and Mikael Wiberg we discuss the idea of teory driven research as an opportunity for improvement in HCI research, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07370020903586696]
Interaction Design Philosophy & Interaction-Design.org
One of the most ambitious sources of (open) scholarship in the field of HCI and interaction design is today found at Interaction-Design.org. This site is filled with content from some of the most distinguished researchers and designers in the field. I just got an email from interaction-design.org about their newest addition to the encyclopedia. It is an article called Philosophy of Interaction and the Interactive User Experience. The article is written by Dag Svanaes and has substantial comments from Don Norman and Eva Hornecker. Svanaes is ambitious in his approach to reveal the philosophy of the field. This is highly recommendable even for those who might not agree with his analysis. We definitely need more texts like this in the field. Many more.
It is great that we do have interaction-design.org as a source of quality materials that is also free to anyone interested. The site also includes a great calendar of conferences and deadlines and bibliographies of many researchers in the field. Mads Soegaard who is the Editor-in-Chief for this endeavor is doing a great job.
It is great that we do have interaction-design.org as a source of quality materials that is also free to anyone interested. The site also includes a great calendar of conferences and deadlines and bibliographies of many researchers in the field. Mads Soegaard who is the Editor-in-Chief for this endeavor is doing a great job.
CHI 2011, the field, development, grand challenge, and the need for more books
Back from this years CHI conference. This time in Vancouver. Bigger than ever before. Amazingly well organized for a conference of this size.
CHI is changing. It is not easy to really understand what the changes are when you are at the conference, but compared with just a few years ago it is easier to see that there is a difference. The conference is broader, more diverse. I had the chance to go to several sessions and it is exciting to see that not only is the diversity growing but I also found the quality in general to be better than usual.
One clear change to me is a new interest in theory. I was very pleased to see a design theory session filling two large rooms, and so did the more theoretical design methods session. I hope that this is a sign that the field is getting more eager to find ways to synthesize findings and results from all the studies, experiments, and designs projects.
A field of this size need people who can bring things together, who can conceptualize, theorize on a level of abstractness that covers the whole field or at least larger parts of the field. To me this also means a strong need for more books. The field produces a lot of books already, but they are mostly textbooks or focused on a particular issue, method, or technology. This is of course fine an also needed, but we do need more general books that in more philosophical terms can help us all to find ways to think about the field, what we are really doing, what we should do, and what we should strive for. For this to happen, we need many more theoretical investigations into the core and foundation of the field. This is of course not done by one person in one book. This can only be achieved if many thinkers in the field in their own way contribute their view of the field. A field can only develop when there are a certain amount of friction between different and diverse sets of theoretical views.
At the moment it seems as one way of coming up with conceptual maps of the field is by looking at the sessions at CHI. I met people at CHI who count sessions in different areas and compare to earlier years as a way to determine if and how the field has changed, even though the session design is not a result of any deeper reflection of the field or the content of the papers. However, counting of sessions is one way of developing an understanding of a changing field. It would though be more valuable to have a spectrum of different interpretations of the field by people who take on the task to create overall theoretical understandings of what is going on.
So, to repeat what I always argue for, we need more books. We need books that allow for broad philosophical and theoretical descriptions and interpretations of what HCI and interaction design is all about. Books that deal with the major issues of how a field like this can stay current, make a contribution to society and be relevant. I don't only see this as something needed from within the field, it is also something that I truly believe is lacking in the society at large. Since interactions between humans and digital technology will continue to grow and will without a doubt influence every corner of our society and peoples everyday lives, our field should be able to contribute some grand ideas and grand theories based on the perspective and the knowledge that we have developed over the last thirty years. The interactive society at large would welcome theories about what is going on, where it is going, if we as a field took that larger challenge in a serious way. I do not see any other field taking on this challenge....
CHI is changing. It is not easy to really understand what the changes are when you are at the conference, but compared with just a few years ago it is easier to see that there is a difference. The conference is broader, more diverse. I had the chance to go to several sessions and it is exciting to see that not only is the diversity growing but I also found the quality in general to be better than usual.
One clear change to me is a new interest in theory. I was very pleased to see a design theory session filling two large rooms, and so did the more theoretical design methods session. I hope that this is a sign that the field is getting more eager to find ways to synthesize findings and results from all the studies, experiments, and designs projects.
A field of this size need people who can bring things together, who can conceptualize, theorize on a level of abstractness that covers the whole field or at least larger parts of the field. To me this also means a strong need for more books. The field produces a lot of books already, but they are mostly textbooks or focused on a particular issue, method, or technology. This is of course fine an also needed, but we do need more general books that in more philosophical terms can help us all to find ways to think about the field, what we are really doing, what we should do, and what we should strive for. For this to happen, we need many more theoretical investigations into the core and foundation of the field. This is of course not done by one person in one book. This can only be achieved if many thinkers in the field in their own way contribute their view of the field. A field can only develop when there are a certain amount of friction between different and diverse sets of theoretical views.
At the moment it seems as one way of coming up with conceptual maps of the field is by looking at the sessions at CHI. I met people at CHI who count sessions in different areas and compare to earlier years as a way to determine if and how the field has changed, even though the session design is not a result of any deeper reflection of the field or the content of the papers. However, counting of sessions is one way of developing an understanding of a changing field. It would though be more valuable to have a spectrum of different interpretations of the field by people who take on the task to create overall theoretical understandings of what is going on.
So, to repeat what I always argue for, we need more books. We need books that allow for broad philosophical and theoretical descriptions and interpretations of what HCI and interaction design is all about. Books that deal with the major issues of how a field like this can stay current, make a contribution to society and be relevant. I don't only see this as something needed from within the field, it is also something that I truly believe is lacking in the society at large. Since interactions between humans and digital technology will continue to grow and will without a doubt influence every corner of our society and peoples everyday lives, our field should be able to contribute some grand ideas and grand theories based on the perspective and the knowledge that we have developed over the last thirty years. The interactive society at large would welcome theories about what is going on, where it is going, if we as a field took that larger challenge in a serious way. I do not see any other field taking on this challenge....
"The Three Paradigms of HCI"
I recently found the paper "The Three Paradigms of HCI" by Steve Harrison, Phoebe Sengers, and Deborah Tatar from CHI 2007. Strangely enough I have not seen this paper before, which is too bad. I very much like the basic idea of the paper and the way they describe three paradigms of HCI. I like it because they make definitions, categorize things, creates a conceptual map, that is, they theorize about theory in HCI. Something that needs to be done much more! And they do it in a way that makes me want to discuss the paradigms further and to continue to develop the ideas . These are signs of a good paper. There are of course arguments that I don't agree with, but that just makes the paper even more valuable :-) Find it and read it!!
Thanks to Kevin here is a link to the paper!
Thanks to Kevin here is a link to the paper!
HCI and Aesthetics
Again I want to point to a blog post by my colleague Jeff Bardzell. He has done an excellent analysis of the latest issue of ToCHI (Transaction of Computer Human Interaction), considered to be a top journal in the field. This is a special issue on aesthetics and Jeff has examine what sources these researchers have used when they deal with the notion of aesthetics. Very interesting!
Missing CHI 2008
This year I can't got to CHI in Florence due to family issues. When I am thinking about what I miss, it is obvious that the value of being at any conference is not so much in individual papers or presentations, but the sense of direction of the field that you can "feel in the air". This kind of experience depends on being there, it is extremely situated. So, what will the sense of direction for the future of HCI research be this year (which I will not be able to experience). I hope someone who is there will let me know!!!
Time for CHI2007
Today I am leaving for CHI. It will be an interesting week as usual. It is a way to inquire into the core of the field, find our what is going on, where people are directing their interest. It is of course an opportunity to meet colleagues. And, we are looking forward to the student design competition!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
For some time now, my good friend and colleague Ron Wakkary has talked about the book " Thing knowledge - a philosophy of scientific in... -
I am developing a theory of interaction (!). In the process of doing that, I am trying to categorize my theory. To do that I need to know wh...
-
I guess everybody has heard about the Toyota car problem. This is a terrible situation for Toyota, of course. At the same it also exposes so...