Metaprobes, Metaphysical Workshops and Sketchy Philosophy

The intersection of philosophy and HCI is a longstanding site of interest for the field that has been attracting special attention in recent years. In this paper, we present metaphysical probes (Metaprobes) as a tool for design-led philosophical inquiry. A Metaprobe is a design artifact used to study a metaphysical idea without concealing the philosophical tools mobilized by the designers or the designerly knowledge attained after deployment. We introduce the concept of a Metaphysical Workshop. This is the set of sketchy philosophical notions that a designer mobilizes in order to research a philosophical idea through design. We then present a case study that comprises: the philosophical issue under examination, the Metaprobes designed to study it, the metaphysical workshop used and the designerly insight produced. We conclude with a discussion of the potentials and weaknesses of Metaprobes in relation to other critical and speculative research-through-design practices. We aim to provide one way to make philosophies already present in design more explicit and make other philosophical concepts relevant to HCI more accessible and workable for designers.

[1]  John Zimmerman,et al.  5 – Field: How to Follow Design Through Society , 2012 .

[2]  Lone Koefoed Hansen,et al.  PeriodShare: A Bloody Design Fiction , 2016, NordiCHI.

[3]  Henry Lin,et al.  Material speculation: actual artifacts for critical inquiry , 2015, Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives.

[4]  Robb Mitchell,et al.  What’s the Matter with[in] Design Fiction? , 2017 .

[5]  Allison Druin,et al.  Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families , 2003, CHI '03.

[6]  I. Bogost.  Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing , 2012 .

[7]  Daniel Fallman,et al.  The new good: exploring the potential of philosophy of technology to contribute to human-computer interaction , 2011, CHI.

[8]  James Auger,et al.  Why Robot? Speculative design, the domestication of technology and the considered future , 2012 .

[9]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning , 2014 .

[10]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition - a new foundation for design , 1987 .

[11]  Ron Wakkary,et al.  An Annotated Portfolio on Doing Postphenomenology Through Research Products , 2018, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[12]  Joseph Lindley,et al.  Why the Internet of Things needs Object Orientated Ontology , 2017 .

[13]  Enrique Encinas,et al.  The offject : a design theory of fiction , 2018 .

[14]  Shaun W. Lawson,et al.  Making Problems in Design Research: The Case of Teen Shoplifters on Tumblr , 2018, CHI.

[15]  夏辉.  One Hundred Years of Solitude , 2021, Architecture in Fictional Literature: Essays on Selected Works.

[16]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development , 2010, CHI.

[17]  M. Blythe,et al.  Critical Theory and Interaction Design , 2018 .

[18]  Shaowen Bardzell,et al.  Feminism and interaction design , 2011, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[19]  Graham Harman.  Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) , 2019 .

[20]  Graham Harman,et al.  The Quadruple Object , 2011 .

[21]  Subhasis Chattopadhyay,et al.  Review of Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything , 2019 .

[22]  Jonas Löwgren,et al.  Annotated portfolios and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge , 2013, INTR.

[23]  Bettina Nissen,et al.  On Speculative Enactments , 2017, CHI.

[24]  É. Souriau,et al.  The Different Modes of Existence , 2015 .

[25]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Expanding and Refining Design and Criticality in HCI , 2015, CHI.

[26]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI , 2007, CHI.

[27]  Ron Wakkary,et al.  Philosophers Living with the Tilting Bowl , 2018, CHI.

[28]  ACM Classification Keywords , 2022 .

[29]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  Prototypes and prototyping in design research , 2015 .

[30]  Mark Blythe,et al.  Research Fiction and Thought Experiments in Design , 2018, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[31]  Ron Wakkary,et al.  Productive Frictions: Moving from Digital to Material Prototyping and Low-Volume Production for Design Research , 2016, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[32]  Cameron Tonkinwise,et al.  To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism , 2014 .

[33]  Kevin I.-J. Ho,et al.  What Would You Do?: Design Fiction and Ethics , 2018, GROUP.

[34]  Paul Dourish,et al.  How HCI interprets the probes , 2007, CHI.

[35]  Tristan Garcia,et al.  Form and Object , 2014 .

[36]  J. G. Tanenbaum,et al.  Design fictional interactions , 2014, Interactions.

[37]  Peter C. Wright,et al.  The prayer companion: openness and specificity, materiality and spirituality , 2010, CHI.

[38]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Products as Agents: Metaphors for Designing the Products of the IoT Age , 2017, CHI.

[39]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Design: Cultural probes , 1999, INTR.

[40]  T. Eagleton,et al.  Literary Theory: An Introduction. , 1984 .

[41]  Jeffrey Bardzell,et al.  Interaction criticism: An introduction to the practice , 2011, Interact. Comput..

[42]  R.I.A. Mercuri,et al.  Technology as Experience , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[43]  Stuart Reeves,et al.  Alternate endings: using fiction to explore design futures , 2014, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[44]  Hamid R. Ekbia,et al.  Social Inequality and HCI: The View from Political Economy , 2016, CHI.

[45]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[46]  D. D. Kim.  The Ship of Theseus. , 2018, JAMA.

[47]  P. Coulton,et al.  Turning Philosophy with a Speculative Lathe: object-oriented ontology, carpentry, and design fiction , 2018, DRS2018: Catalyst.

[48]  Mark Blythe,et al.  The Co-ordinates of Design Fiction: Extrapolation, Irony, Ambiguity and Magic , 2016, GROUP.

[49]  Addison Jarvis Brown,et al.  Suspension of Disbelief , 2017 .

[50]  Richard Banks,et al.  From Research Prototype to Research Product , 2016, CHI.

[51]  Steve Benford,et al.  Ambiguity as a resource for design , 2003, CHI '03.

[52]  B. Latour.  On actor-network theory : A few clarifications , 1996 .

[53]  Mark Blythe,et al.  The Solution Printer: Magic Realist Design Fiction , 2016, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[54]  Peter C. Wright,et al.  Anti-Solutionist Strategies: Seriously Silly Design Fiction , 2016, CHI.

[55]  William W. Gaver.  What should we expect from research through design? , 2012, CHI.

[56]  N. Cross.  Design Research: a disciplined conversation , 1999 .

[57]  Michael Mateas,et al.  Game-O-Matic: Generating Videogames that Represent Ideas , 2012, PCG@FDG.

[58]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Framing IxD knowledge , 2015, Interactions.

[59]  Graham Harman.  Object-Oriented Ontology , 2015 .

[60]  Muriel Zimmerman,et al.  Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[61]  Eva Hornecker,et al.  Theories of embodiment in HCI , 2013 .

[62]  Mark Blythe,et al.  Imaginary Design Workbooks: Constructive Criticism and Practical Provocation , 2018, CHI.

[63]  Johan Redström,et al.  RE:Definitions of use , 2008 .

[64]  H. Bloom.  Gabriel García Márquez's One hundred years of solitude , 2003 .

[65]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[66]  J. Hughes,et al.  Designing with Care: Adapting Cultural Probes to Inform Design in Sensitive Settings , 2003 .

[67]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[68]  Dag Svanæs,et al.  Interaction design for and with the lived body: Some implications of merleau-ponty's phenomenology , 2013, TCHI.

[69]  Brendan Walker,et al.  Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty , 2004, INTR.

[70]  Tuuli Mattelmäki,et al.  Mobile probes , 2004, NordiCHI '04.