# Diverse Ecologies – Interdisciplinary Development for Cultural Education

Michael Heidt, Kalja Kanellopoulos, Linda Pfeiffer, Paul Rosenthal

► To cite this version:

Michael Heidt, Kalja Kanellopoulos, Linda Pfeiffer, Paul Rosenthal. Diverse Ecologies – Interdisciplinary Development for Cultural Education. 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT), Sep 2013, Cape Town, South Africa. pp.539-546, 10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_43. hal-01510538

HAL Id: hal-01510538

https://inria.hal.science/hal-01510538

Submitted on 19 Apr 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Diverse Ecologies – Interdisciplinary Development for Cultural Education

Michael Heidt<fnref n="1" />, Kalja Kanellopoulos<fnref n="1" />, Linda Pfeiffer<fnref n="2" />, and Paul Rosenthal<fnref n="2" />

michael.heidt@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de,
kalja.kanellopoulos@phil.tu-chemnitz.de,
linda.pfeiffer@s2011.tu-chemnitz.de,
paul.rosenthal@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de

**Abstract.** We present a case study outlining development efforts towards an in-
terface ecology to be deployed in museums. We argue that the problem at hand
calls for a highly interdisciplinary design process. Furthermore, system design
in the domain of cultural education poses a unique set of challenges. At the
same time few existing design methodologies are suitable for addressing this
special environment of system design. We outline a set of tentative methodo-
logical elements aimed at informing adequate interdisciplinary development
processes. The discussion is embedded into a critique of existing methodologies
while being orientated towards inviting critique itself. The guiding insight steer-
ing our methodological developments is that fundamental differences between
project participants and other stakeholders should be construed as assets. Rather
than trying to integrate them or covering them up, the dynamic friction between
differing viewpoints can be rendered productive by means of poetic practices.

**Keywords:** interdisciplinarity, museum informatics, design for cultural experience

## 1 Introduction

Devices geared towards product development aim at producing artefacts amenable to concepts such as efficiency, effectiveness and usability. Cultural contexts usually require a different development perspective. Most interfaces constructed for exhibition spaces do not aim at enabling the user to fulfil specific and predetermined tasks as quickly as possible, but offer the possibility to explore and experience the exhibited artefacts or the narratives connected to them. They have to enrich visitor experience

<footnote n="1">¹ Research Training Group ‘crossWorlds’, Chemnitz University of Technology, Thüringer Weg 5, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Visual Computing Laboratory, Chemnitz University of Technology, Straße der Nationen 62, 09111 Chemnitz, Germany</footnote>
and at the same time need to refer to the context they are placed in. Therefore, the actual situation of deployment and use gains enormous importance. It consequently needs to be accounted for within the design process at an early stage. What is to be observed on the contrary is that technological developments for museums are often decontextualised during the process of design. They are frequently outsourced to external production companies, while cooperation between these companies and the museums during the design process remains rudimentary. This leads to the fact, that the highly deployment specific actual contexts of use for these technologies often are neglected. Consequently, many of the developed technologies are not well received by their end users, the museum visitors. In order to overcome the mentioned problems, we state the necessity of realigning technological systems with the cultural contexts they are to be operated in.

## 2 Project Context

The project described here is tasked with developing interactive installations and mobile applications for the domain of cultural education within museums. It is situated within a collective of researchers with diverse backgrounds. These range from informatics and engineering over psychology and sociology to philosophy, rhetoric, and literary studies. Installations are developed in close collaboration with a local museum of industry, while collaborations with other museums exist as well. Among the installations developed are tangible user interfaces, mobile applications and multitouch tables. The design processes are informed by an exploratory pre-study and a concurrent ethnography. Some of the results of the pre-study and their implications for design will be outlined in the following.

Concerning new media and interfaces in museums and exhibitions the discursive focus often lies on learning [1]. What can be observed empirically on the contrary, is the importance of the visitor *experience* during a museum visit. This experience is influenced by several factors. Not only is the museum an environment for cultural education, but also one for strolling, interaction and communication with others. The museum environment connects visitors to those far in time and space: to past events, persons deceased, artefacts, concepts and narratives rendered strange by the passing of time. At the same time visitors have to interact and connect with those close to them in space and time. This includes interaction with other visitors as well as the interactivity with exhibits and technical artefacts. It is this dynamic interplay of times, spaces, persons and artefacts that forms the unique ensemble of situations that constitutes the museum experience itself. It is characterised by the contrast of an immersive present environment with the invoked feelings of something far removed. Consequently, the aim of our design process is not to transform the experience of the museum visit in a spectacular way, but to support it gently and on a playful basis.

In the subsequent phase of the project, prototyping techniques were deployed in order to generate ideas for improvement of existing systems. The overarching narrative was that of a museum-visit. It exhibits a three-part structure: preparation, actual visit and recapitulation. It has proven essential to develop overarching scenarios in
order to contain specialists' affinities to disregard context specifics and to selectively
optimise their respective system components regarding technological impressiveness
and feasibility.

Among the prototypes developed were:

1. A recommender engine, trying to foster communication by pointing users towards fellow visitors, possessing relevant knowledge.

2. A multitouch-table installation, allowing users to engage in playful interactions with exhibit related information.

3. An interactive role-playing device. Optical recognition of props present in the museum is used to present users with relevant narratives.

The development of the first set of prototypes and scenarios was followed by interdisciplinary discussions. Subsequently and regarding the outcome of this exchange, the attempt was made to break up monolithic deployments into their conceptual and material parts.

To this end usage scenarios for individual prototypes were discussed. Considering
the observations made by social scientists in the field, usage scenarios were elaborat-
ed into mini-narratives accounting for situational factors within the deployment con-
text. These mini-narratives now can be composed in a non-linear fashion, thereby
allowing for exploring possible patterns of system usage.

For example, the analysis unveiled that though prototypes i) and ii) had been de-
veloped with two distinct sets of goals in mind, they share a functional characteristic.
Both facilitate communication between visitors. The recommender system does this
by virtue of direct proposals for communication. The table installation reduces com-
municative inhibitions by allowing visitors to perceive each other during technologi-
cally mediated interactions. The analysis thus allowed for a more conscious and stra-
tegic utilisation of the communicative incentives provided.

In a next step individual elements will be orchestrated into new functional ensem-
bles according to the requirements of the museum ecology.

3 Implications of Interdisciplinarity

The value of technological virtuosity is not to produce ever more spectacular displays
of its own prowess. It is twofold in nature. First, it allows more degrees of freedom
when designing technology. As social practice is diverse, reproduced within a web of
disparate sites of practice, the technical possibilities for cultural embedding of tech-
nology likewise are diverse and disparate. It is an informatician's job to recognize and
exploit these possibilities. This requires a vast level of mastery of technological skills
- as well as insights in the social and cultural structures the developed technology will
be deployed in. Therein lies one of the main reasons for interdisciplinary cooperation
with social scientists in system development. Collaborations of this type are based on
a high level of communication between heterogeneous actors - apart from infor-
mation professionals and social scientists, system users and other professionals within
the technological field itself have to be included as well.
The key in facilitating communication in these kinds of interdisciplinary working contexts lies in the realisation that system development too contains theory building aspects. Whenever confronted with a new domain, developers usually develop informal theories describing how this domain is structured. They do not do so by means of ethnographic analysis and generally do not apply social theory. At this point, the theory building process is usually implicit and remains opaque to other project participants. This does not mean, however, that the theories themselves are unstructured or inherently informal. On the contrary, system designers with a background in engineering tend to construe social practices observed with the same formal concepts used to understand technical components. This creates potentials for misconstruction of the social. While diverse perspectives and ambiguities can have catastrophic effects within the sphere of the technical, understanding of social practice necessitates embracing diversity, heterogeneity, multi-perspectivity – and calls for acceptance of its inherent ambiguities.

The relationship between design, social science and informatics has been discussed extensively within the HCI community [2–4]. Following the authors cited, we acknowledge that there is tension inherent in the cooperation of engineers and social scientists. We argue, however, that this tension can be made productive by employment of adequate methodologies. Therefore, our approach does not try to integrate differing perspectives within one conceptual framework. We rather try to create sensitivity of project participants towards the perspectives of the others, as outlined in **Fig. 1**. We do not expect to achieve fundamental perspective transformations, but aim at repeated chiastic crossing of boundaries.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Differing perspectives are made productive by means of translations and mutual sensitivity.</figcaption></figure>
While it is not necessary for social scientists to fully grasp technical intricacies and engineers do not need to follow involved discussions of social theory or methodologies to their conceptual origins, it is paramount that project participants develop a feeling of 'how they are different'. Inside the disciplinary terrain the same demand needs to be made, as researchers from the same discipline can differ broadly concerning research paradigms, methods and methodologies as well as favoured theoretical approaches. We developed a set of communicative devices in order to highlight these differences and make them tractable within the design process. These are detailed in the following subsection. Among the techniques employed are different forms of diagrams as well as other visual aids and narrative devices.

## Communicative devices

In order to aid the communicative process within the interdisciplinary setting, different forms of analytical description were employed. These ranged from formal-technical diagrams employing mathematical language over pictures and photos to informally presented narratives. It has proven both necessary as well as beneficial to encourage participants to discuss their work at an early stage. Furthermore, scientists had to explain their different backgrounds to each other, including previous work and methods employed. A multitude of mutual misconceptions could thus be caught at an early stage – while others may still be present.

Additionally, it has to be stressed that both spatial proximity of researchers from diverse fields, as well as their spatial distance to the surrounding everyday university processes, has proven to be an invaluable asset in producing ideas. As so often is the case, communal trips to the canteen, spontaneous doodle sessions during coffee breaks and seemingly random prototyping sessions in the printer-room have dwarfed official and semi-official design workshop appointments regarding creative power.

However, this should not point to the conclusion that informal talk is enough, rendering formal appointments obsolete. On the contrary, regular meetings have proven to be an integral and invaluable constituent of the communicative ecosystem. They provided helpful incentives to translate work into a language accessible to the other. Frequently, forcing to take these fresh perspectives resulted in the emergence of new ideas and a firmer grasp of the tacit assumptions underlying the own work process. Consequently, a practice similar to that of SCRUM [5] was adopted: Participants were encouraged to explain what they have been working on since the last regular meeting. Encouraging participants to pose questions to each other also proved to be helpful. Within these discussions it proved helpful to develop a certain discipline: Before presenting an argument, dialogue partners had to adequately sum up the position of their predecessor. Furthermore, conducting clustering sessions where participants had to cluster thoughts and concepts produced by researchers from another discipline furthered mutual understanding. A set of visual devices was also employed, these are detailed further in an accompanying publication [6].

The most essential communicative device was that of prototyping. Prototyping provides means to overcome communicative boundaries by employing the integrating power of the material. Thereby, prototypes produced create unique communicative
opportunities. Problems and perspectives can be discussed across disciplinary lan-
guages and vocabularies with respect to artefacts, which literally are graspable. They
allow researchers and developers to derive descriptions from concrete material ob-
jects. At the same time, they can be discussed as material correlates of ideas. In the
outlined project prototypes were cut out of paper and cardboard, assembled using
everyday objects forming structures bearing similarity to an assemblage or made from
dough or lego bricks.

However, prototyping can also gloss over antagonistic perspectives: Since the proto-
type already has been built, utterances can easily be misunderstood by presupposing
the own construal of the artefact at hand. Frequently, the opportunity to shatter and
question presuppositions is missed during the process, especially if it is geared to-
wards rapid development. Therefore, it proved imperative to embed the prototyping
process into the network of communicative support detailed above. Every prototype
developed has to be discussed prior to inception, during the respective prototyping
session as well as afterwards during a regular meeting.

4 Related Work

At this point it is important to address the inherent contradictions of user-centered
design (UCD). Central to the UCD process usually is an understanding of users’ tasks
and goals. However, in most domains the users’ tasks will not be their own. They are
determined by organisational and institutional settings. Actual users’ wishes and de-
sires will entertain a dialectical tension with those environmental requirements. Fur-
thermore, we highlight the role of UCD as being rooted in a rhetorical situation. UCD
is not employed by uninterested third parties but by persons and organisations wish-
ing to achieve certain goals.

Our treatment of system design is informed by the notion that concepts have poli-
tics [7] and that artefacts facilitate social practices. System development cannot mere-
ly be considered as an instrumental process. It is a site of struggle, where different
interests and views of the world engage with each other. Our methodologies try to
account for these productive antagonisms while trying to enable productive discussion
and struggle within the embodied practices themselves. Our goals are distinct from
UCD in that we do not aim at merely identifying user expectations or desires. What
we envision is not exclusive development for the user but a critical dialogue between
project stakeholders as *well as* end users.

Embodied Interaction developed by Paul Dourish [8] proposes a blend of methods
from social-sciences and humanities. He builds on a phenomenological understanding
of the realm computing systems are part of. Drawing on Lucy Suchman's research
[9], he develops a processual conception of reality in conjunction with a situational
multi-level conception of meaning. The key concept is that of embodiment, reminding
designers how each artefact always is used in the context of practice and that practice
in turn takes part in a meaning making process. Dourish goes on to develop a set of
practical design guidelines. We found the argumentation to be cogent and the specifi-
cation of practical guidelines refreshing. Embodied Interaction provides a site for
common understanding between social-scientists and informaticians, due to its roots
both in anthropology as well as informatics. It has consequently informed our design
process and proved to be one of the most beneficial conceptual toolsets. However, it
focusses more on the analysis of the socio-ontological status of HCI artefacts while
temporarily neglecting production processes. Consequently, we found that it needs to
be combined with further methodological tools in order to realise its inner potential.

Participatory Design aims at communicative integration of all stakeholders poten-
tially affected by an artefact [10]. It centres on democratic discussion and deliberative
processes. Although our own approach is informed by Participatory Design, we do
not conceive of our design project as an instance of public service. The design team
follows convictions not identical with that of potential users. Consequently, we do not
try to simulate a consensus. Rather, we try to articulate the privileged nature as well
as the limitations of our own position as scientists, developers, designers.

Value-Sensitive Design [11–14] describes itself as an alternative paradigm to par-
ticipatory approaches. Whereas Participatory Design highlights the need for valuing
every participant’s opinion, here adhering to human values is given preference. Value
Sensitive approaches emphasise the need to acknowledge trade-offs between conflict-
ing values. Consequently, the design process is aimed at enabling reasonable ethically
informed decisions, while stating that these must remain publicly accountable.

Our design process is informed by extensive discussions of ethical implications. In
contrast to Value Sensitive Design, we do not try to create a deliberative space inte-
grating each and every stakeholder. This first of all is not feasible from an organisa-
tional perspective within our project parameters. While we do try to involve potential
system users early in the process, this is not done in order to reach a consensus. On
the contrary, we think it is imperative to make our own goals very clear and embody
them into artefacts. These should be contestable in a wider realm of discussion. In
effect, we view our design actions as being accountable to others, while not trying to
speak from a position of consensus.

Critical Technical Practice as initially put forward by Phil Agre constituted itself as
an effort to reform the field of Artificial Intelligence [15–17] . Within the works cited,
Agre argues for a situational approach towards AI problems, trying to highlight short-
comings inhering in the idea of universal cognition. Our research efforts align them-
selves with some of the basic stances put forward by Agre. Namely, we try to reflect
on the untested assumptions underlying practices of technology design.
Critical Technical Practice has since informed a multitude of concepts within the field
of HCI. One of these influences is Reflective HCI [18], a joint effort of theorists affil-
iated with Embodied Interaction, AI centred Critical Technical Practice and other
paradigms within the HCI community.

5 Conclusion

We have described an interdisciplinary development project in the domain of mu-
seum education. Highlighting the specificity of cultural contexts, we argued for the
necessity of customising existing design methods. Viewing the diversity of differing
perspectives as assets rather than problems, we have described communicative devices to inform interdisciplinary development. Consequently, our process aims for repeated chiastic crossing of boundaries in order to sensitise participants for the otherness of the other. We do not expect to achieve fundamental perspective transformations on a short or medium timescale.

## References

1. Reussner, E.M., Schwan, S., Zahn, C.: New Technologies for Learning in Museums: An Interdisciplinary Research Project. In: Trant, J. and Bearman, D. (eds.) International Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting (ICHIM07): Proceedings. Archives & Museum Informatics, Toronto (2007).

2. Mackay, W., Fayard, A.: HCI, natural science and design: a framework for triangulation across disciplines. Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. 223–234 (1997).

3. Hughes, J.A., Brien, J.O., Rodden, T., Plc, N.B.: Designing with Ethnography: A Presentation Framework for Design. 147–158.

4. Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., Andersen, H.: Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design. (1994).

5. Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile software development with Scrum. Prentice Hall PTR Upper Saddle River (2002).

6. Heidt, M.: Examining Interdisciplinary Prototyping in the Context of Cultural Communication. HCI International 2013. In press.

7. Suchman, L.: Do Categories Have Politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. 177–190 (1994).

8. Dourish, P.: Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. The MIT Press (2004).

9. Suchman, L.A.: Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA (1987).

10. Muller, M., Kuhn, S.: Participatory design. Communications of the ACM. (1993).

11. Friedman, B., Borning, A.: Value Sensitive Design as a Pattern: Examples from Informed Consent in Web Browsers and from Urban Simulation. Design. (1997).

12. Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H., Hall, G.: A Value-Sensitive Design Approach to Augmented Reality. Design. 163–164 (2000).

13. Louise, J., Davis, N.: Value Sensitive Design of Interactions with UrbanSim Indicators. Design. (2006).

14. Borning, A., Muller, M.: Next steps for value sensitive design. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '12. 1125 (2012).

15. Agre, P.: Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform Al. Social Science, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide. 1–17 (1997).

16. Agre, P.E.: The soul gained and lost: artificial intelligence as a philosophical project. Stanford Hum. Rev. 4, 1–19 (1995).

17. Agre, P.E.: Computation and Human Experience. Cambridge University Press (1997).

18. Dourish, P., Finlay, J., Sengers, P., Wright, P.: Reflective HCI: Towards a Critical Technical Practice. (2004).