Diagramming Working Field Theories for Design in the HCI Classroom

HCI has historically provided little support for moving from fieldwork insights or theories to design outcomes. Having witnessed many students struggle and then justify their designs with a form of marketing hype, we developed a supporting approach of “field theories”. A field theory is a working theory about salient interactions in a particular domain and sensitizing concepts in order to frame design investigations. It is presented visually in a field theory diagram to support succinct communication and critique. Studying use of design prototypes that have been informed by a field theory helps to reflect upon and refine the theory. In this paper we present examples from our HCI classes and reflections based on interviews with students. We discuss how field theories offer an orientation in the spirit of a ‘bricoleur’ who harnesses elements of theory and practice to produce deeper understandings and more fitting outcomes for the task at hand.

[1]  Jeanette Blomberg,et al.  An ethnographic approach to design , 2002 .

[2]  Glenn A. Bowen.  Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts , 2006 .

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

[4]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Research Through Design in HCI , 2014, Ways of Knowing in HCI.

[5]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  A behavior model for persuasive design , 2009, Persuasive '09.

[6]  Colin M. Gray,et al.  Advancing UX Education: A Model for Integrated Studio Pedagogy , 2017, CHI.

[7]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research , 2012, TCHI.

[8]  C. Lévi-Strauss.  The Savage Mind , 1967 .

[9]  Bill Buxton,et al.  Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design , 2007 .

[10]  Jesper Simonsen,et al.  Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design , 2012 .

[11]  V. A. Howard,et al.  Varieties of thinking : essays from Harvard's Philosophy of Education Research Center , 1990 .

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

[13]  Peter Dalsgård,et al.  Between theory and practice: bridging concepts in HCI research , 2014, CHI.

[14]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Personas: practice and theory , 2003, DUX '03.

[15]  David R. Millen,et al.  Rapid ethnography: time deepening strategies for HCI field research , 2000, DIS '00.

[16]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[17]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 2000 .

[18]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  The Three Paradigms of HCI , 2007 .

[19]  Tom McKlin,et al.  Cultural Clash: Exploring How Studio-Based Pedagogy Impacts Learning for Students in HCI Classrooms , 2020, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

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

[21]  William W. Gaver,et al.  Strategies for Annotating Portfolios: Mapping Designs for New Domains , 2020, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[22]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design , 2013 .

[23]  Daniel Fallman,et al.  Design-oriented human-computer interaction , 2003, CHI '03.

[24]  Alessandro Soro,et al.  Designing the Past , 2019, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[25]  Toni Robertson,et al.  Designing situations , 2009, OZCHI.

[26]  Cayla Key,et al.  Parallels, Tangents, and Loops: Reflections on the 'Through' Part of RtD , 2020, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[27]  E. Giaccardi.  Histories and futures of research through design : From prototypes to connected things , 2019 .

[28]  CHRISTINE A. HALVERSON,et al.  Activity Theory and Distributed Cognition: Or What Does CSCW Need to DO with Theories? , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[29]  Edward Rolf Tufte,et al.  The visual display of quantitative information , 1985 .

[30]  Myke Gluck,et al.  Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative , 1997, Inf. Process. Manag..

[31]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[32]  E. Brink,et al.  Constructing grounded theory : A practical guide through qualitative analysis , 2006 .

[33]  Alessandro Soro,et al.  Cross-Cultural Dialogical Probes , 2016, AfriCHI.

[34]  George Mason,et al.  Visual Thinking , 2017, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[35]  Robert J. Anderson,et al.  Representations and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design , 1994, Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[37]  A. Strauss,et al.  Managing chronic illness at home: Three lines of work , 1985 .

[38]  David G. Hendry,et al.  Value Sensitive Design , 2019 .

[39]  Christopher Frauenberger,et al.  Entanglement HCI The Next Wave? , 2019, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

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

[41]  A. Parry.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2002 .

[42]  Donald A. Schön.  Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation , 1992, Knowl. Based Syst..

[43]  Betsy DiSalvo,et al.  Design in the HCI Classroom: Setting a Research Agenda , 2019, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[44]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction , 2002, UBIQ.

[45]  J. Woodroffe,et al.  A learning experience. , 1987, New Zealand hospital.

[46]  C. T. Hansen,et al.  The Design Process , 2015 .

[47]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[48]  John B. Biggs,et al.  Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does , 1999 .

[49]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Sketching User Experiences - The Workbook , 2011 .

[50]  Wendy E. Mackay,et al.  Video artifacts for design: bridging the Gap between abstraction and detail , 2000, DIS '00.