Pushing LIMITS: Envisioning beyond the artifact

As a pandemic rages and ecosystems around the globe collapse, the LIMITS community---along with the rest of the world---is working to adapt. Some adaptations to adjust to emergencies are easy to imagine. For example, months before in-person conferences were canceled in response to COVID-19, the User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) 2019 conference took significant steps towards hosting a geographically distributed, virtual conference, in part adapting to the global climate emergency. This type of change is conceptually clear, if organizationally challenging. However, many needed changes are conceptually difficult, even in the midst of an existential crisis. It is long-recognized that we need to bridge the separation between scholarly venues and publications that focus on technical aspects of computing systems (i.e., "applied") and those that center social and political aspects of computing systems research and design, particularly when attempting to address complex life-wide problems. Yet, disciplinary crystals (e.g., siloes) remain resistant to change. The authors of this paper contribute to ongoing socio-technical efforts, identifying dominant practices and forces that reinforce the socio-technical divide, and holding up empirical projects that offer promising alternatives. We resist the dominant norm to claim that our contributions to scholarship are original, cutting-edge, or unique. Rather this paper revisits a research paradigm from the past because it remains useful and generative for the computing research communities of the future. Through our inquiry we identify a long-standing tendency to include a pivot---a distinct turn to privilege the design of new digital artifacts---even in papers advocating for more expansive conceptualizations of interactive systems. While acknowledging the importance of the initial design of material artifacts (and their associated infrastructures), we reject the assumption that the ultimate "good" of computing or interactive design research is creating new digital artifacts/tools for the marketplace. We offer four provocations to help us understand why material-based, industry-oriented narratives dominate applied venues of computing. Empirical examples from projects around the world, including work that extends the relational and temporal boundaries of computing design, offer alternative approaches. Fundamentally, we ask readers to consider the type of research that the LIMITS community values and in what ways is this scholarship of value to a world in crisis. How does LIMITs research matter?

[1]  L. Nathan,et al.  Values as Hypotheses: Design, Inquiry, and the Service of Values , 2015, Design Issues.

[2]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Multi-lifespan information system design: a research initiative for the hci community , 2010, CHI.

[3]  Roberta Lamb,et al.  Memorial: The Social Construction of Rob Kling , 2003, Inf. Soc..

[4]  B. Culliton.  The academic-industrial complex. , 1982, Science.

[5]  Elisa Giaccardi,et al.  Conceptualising Resourcefulness as a Dispersed Practice , 2017, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[6]  Rob Kling,et al.  Learning About Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics , 2000, Inf. Soc..

[7]  Sue Newell,et al.  The Sociomaterialty of Information Systems: Current Status, Future Directions , 2014, MIS Q..

[8]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Values at play: design tradeoffs in socially-oriented game design , 2005, CHI.

[9]  P. Verbeek.  Acting artifacts : The technological mediation of action , 2006 .

[10]  Ron Wakkary,et al.  Understanding repair as a creative process of everyday design , 2011, C&C '11.

[11]  P. Ehn,et al.  Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised social movements , 2012 .

[12]  Henry A. Giroux.  Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of intellectuals , 2004 .

[13]  Irina Shklovski,et al.  Design for Existential Crisis , 2017, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[14]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  Social informatics: Perspectives, examples, and trends , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[15]  Eli Blevis,et al.  Collapse informatics: augmenting the sustainability & ICT4D discourse in HCI , 2012, CHI.

[16]  Davide Nicolini.  Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction , 2013 .

[17]  Simone Browne,et al.  Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness , 2015 .

[18]  KlingRob,et al.  Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research , 2003 .

[19]  Ron Wakkary,et al.  Manifestations of everyday design: guiding goals and motivations , 2013, Creativity & Cognition.

[20]  Evgeny Morozov,et al.  Book review: To save everything click here: the folly of technological solutionism , 2013 .

[21]  Sophia B. Liu,et al.  Grassroots heritage in the crisis context: a social media probes approach to studying heritage in a participatory age , 2010, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[22]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[23]  Mark S. Ackerman,et al.  The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The Gap Between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[24]  Vasja Vehovar,et al.  Social Informatics Research: Schools of Thought, Methodological Basis, and Thematic Conceptualization , 2020, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[25]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Do categories have politics? , 1993, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[26]  Bill Tomlinson.  Toward a computational immigration assistant , 2015, First Monday.

[27]  S. Gherardi.  Introduction: The Critical Power of the `Practice Lens' , 2009 .

[28]  Lynn Dombrowski,et al.  Social Justice-Oriented Interaction Design: Outlining Key Design Strategies and Commitments , 2016, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[29]  Kentaro Toyama,et al.  Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology , 2015 .

[30]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision , 2007, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[31]  Mark Latonero,et al.  Digital identity in the migration & refugee context: Italy case study , 2019 .

[32]  Volker Wulf,et al.  Engaging with practices: design case studies as a research framework in CSCW , 2011, CSCW.

[33]  James Pierce,et al.  Undesigning technology: considering the negation of design by design , 2012, CHI.

[34]  W. Broad.  The publishing game: getting more for less. , 1981, Science.

[35]  L. Suchman,et al.  Reconstructing Technologies as Social Practice , 1999 .

[36]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Implications for design , 2006, CHI.

[37]  Lisa P. Nathan,et al.  Digital Technology and Sustainability: Engaging the Paradox , 2017 .

[38]  E. Trist,et al.  Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting , 1951 .

[39]  Ciarán O'Leary,et al.  Understanding the Everyday Designer in Organisations , 2016, DESRIST.

[40]  Brooke Borel.  Clicks, Lies and Videotape. , 2018, Scientific American.

[41]  Noëmi Manders-Huits,et al.  What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design , 2010, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[42]  Ruha Benjamin,et al.  Informed Refusal , 2016 .

[43]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Values at play: Tradeoffs in socially-oriented game design , 2005, CHI 2005.

[44]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Identifying and exploring design trade-offs in human-centered design , 2018, AVI.

[45]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. , 2000, Ergonomics.

[46]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  From Findings to Theories: Institutionalizing Social Informatics , 2007, Inf. Soc..

[47]  Patrick Olivier,et al.  Cinejack: using live music to control narrative visuals , 2014, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[48]  Janet Davis,et al.  Value Sensitive Design: Applications, Adaptations, and Critiques , 2013 .

[49]  Anders Sigfridsson,et al.  TiY (tag-it-yourself) , 2010, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.