Journal of Robotics, Networking and Artificial Life, Vol. 1, No. 1 (June 2014), 22-26

Playware Research – Methodological Considerations
Henrik Hautop Lund

Centre for Playware, Technical University of Denmark,2800 Kgs. Lyngby, DenmarkE-mail: hhl@playware.dtu.dk
www.playware.dk

Abstract
Several sub-disciplines of engineering are driven by the researchers’ aim of providing positive change to the society
through their engineering. These researchers are challenged by the traditional research method of experimental
research with a waterfall model which demands clearly defined project definition and functional requirements, andimpose a sequential processes leading to the final system evaluation, which may lead to solutions which work in thelab, but have little impact in the messy real world. Based on two decades research in developing engineeringsystems with a societal impact (e.g. in robotics, embodied AI, and playware), in this paper we suggest a cyclic
research method based on a mix between participatory and experimental processes. In particular, inspiration fromthe action research method applied to interdisciplinary technology development becomes a participatory approach
characterized by rapid prototyping cycles which allow iterative technology specification and development together
with people in their real world environment.
Keywords: Playware, Research Method, Synthesis, Rapid Prototyping, Modular Technology.

1. Introduction
Development of different research methods have often
been neglected in the engineering discipline, since thediscipline has followed the traditional natural science
research methods of performing experimental researchof a positivist nature. This involves rigor in controllingparameters keeping specific parameters constant andothers variable in empirical testing. Hence, the researchmethod arises from a reductionist belief that systems
can be described fully by its components and theirinteraction with a fixed and constant environment. This“ideal” view of the world often leads the engineer to aconventional development approach termed as thewaterfall model1 with clearly identifiable and separated
sequential processes of 1) Project definition, 2)Functional requirements, 3) Functional design, 4)
Implementation design, 5) System assembly, and 6)
System evaluation.
However, engineering is also about creating andbringing technological solutions to people and thesociety. Several sub-disciplines of engineering aredriven by the researchers’ aim of providing positivechange to the society through their engineering. These
researchers are challenged by the traditional researchmethod. Insight from social science, humanities, andarts tells us that people and the society may not be as
rigorously controllable as lab conditions, industrial
factory halls, etc. where the conventional engineeringresearch method and the waterfall model has been
applied with success. In the wild, messy real-world,
there may be a need for another research method forresearchers who aim at developing technologicalsolutions that have a deep impact on people in their
daily life and on the society.
Here we suggest a cyclic action research method
based on a mix between participatory and experimentalprocesses. In particular, inspiration from the action
research method applied to interdisciplinary technology
development becomes a participatory approach
characterized by rapid prototyping cycles which allows

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
22

H. H. Lund

iterative technology specification and development
together with people in their real world environment.
2. Mixed Research Method
With the mixed research method, we suggest that there
are cases, where approaches from the positivistic andinterpretivistic epistemologies can and should bemerged. Health care technology is one such case. Healthcare technology aims at providing new technologicalsolutions for the public health care sector, e.g. for
hospitals, for rehabilitation and care centres, and forcare in the private home. Developing such solutions
demand a broad knowledge about health and disease,engineering competencies, and interdisciplinarycompetencies to develop health care solutions. The
mixed action research method is therefore particularly
well suited for performing such research in health caretechnology.
Traditional action research methods for addressing
the needs and practice in care centers and private homes
are clearly different from traditional research methods
in medicine of performing experimental research e.g.
effect studies through a randomized controlled trial.
However, both issues are crucial to include in researchwhich aims at having an impact on society. Without an
iterative participatory development, it is unlikely thatusers will see the technology fit into their lives andpractice, whereas it is unlikely that health authorities
will accept the technology without experimental
research according to the acknowledged protocols
within the field of medicine. There is little chance that
our society will accept technological health caresolutions without the rigorously controlled experimentsthat provide evidence of effect and potential collateraleffects. Hence, a mixed research method is a necessity
to ensure impact in the society. Indeed, it would beclearly against the aims of action research of creating
society improvements not to include such rigorously
controlled experiments in sub-processes of the researchmethod, since these experiments are the cornerstone forthe society to accept the health care technology. Hence,in such a mixed action research, some sub-processes in
the iterations can be performed in a participatory
manner, whereas other sub-processes must beperformed through controlled experiments.
Other examples include contextualized IT training
and community-based rehabilitation, which by theirnature are close to action research and participatory

methods. Nevertheless, in the case of contextualized IT
training there may still be a need to perform
experimental research on technology and educational
outcomes in order to obtain impact in society, and in thecase of community-based rehabilitation, there is theneed to perform rigorous effect studies similar to thosefor other health care technologies.
3. Applying the Method
As an example of applying this mixed research method,
let us look at the research field of playware.2,3 Typically,
playware research has a core technology research
activity focusing on research into modular playware
technology and its supporting fundamental researchareas of modern AI, adaptivity, modular robotics, andtangible interfaces. Engineering researchers performfundamental research in these areas to develop the basis
for understanding and creating user-interactive
technological systems.

Fig. 1. The combination of several research disciplines insynthesis in an iterative working process

To operationalise this knowledge and develop
prototypes with users, the research method takes its
point of departure from the technological discipline andthe humanistic discipline (see Fig. 1) investigating,understanding and exploiting these scientific fields(modern artificial intelligence, modular robotics, andtangible interaction) in combination with anunderstanding of play and play dynamics, and in moregeneral terms play culture and human motivation. The
knowledge is combined in synthesis to develop design

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
23

Playware Research Methodology

principles, prototypes, and demonstrators of playware
technology, and a choice of these demonstrators are
selected for (e.g. industrial) refinement to become
modular playware technology products. The resulting
modular playware technology is systematically studied
and investigated in the messy real-world environments
in order to guide the next cycle of synthesis,demonstrator and prototype development. Hence, theresearch method is based upon the interdisciplinary
research on how playware in the form of intelligent
hardware and software creates play and playful
experiences amongst the users in their environment.
Within the individual cycle, the systematic study andinvestigation of prototypes and products in the messy
real-world environments can follow an experimental
research method and/or an interpretive research method.
Indeed, often it may be necessary to perform a numberof studies with a plurality of methods, for instance inorder to be able to investigate both the technologicaland the practical feasibility in the environment. There
are issues regarding technological stability androbustness which lends itself best to experimental
research of a positivist nature, whereas issues regarding
human interaction may lend themselves best toparticipatory research of an interpretivist nature. The
combined knowledge from the two research directions’investigations will be the guide for the next cycle ofsynthesis, demonstrator and prototype development.
Combining and weighing the knowledge from the two
research directions is challenging and by no means atrivial task. Therefore, the research method demands
that participants build shared knowledge and language
about the environment, and research focuses on how
results from the two directions are to be combined. The
research method facilitates this combination by focusing
on synthesis in the iterative process.
4.

Iterative Approach

The example of applying the mixed research method to
playware research points to an iterative approach inwhich knowledge is built from iterations of synthesis
and application in the environment. Indeed, in 1946
Lewin4 originally pointed to a spiral of steps in action
research, and the research method has been known as
cyclic action research. In general, the cyclic action
research involves identification of a practical problem,
making a solution, and reflections about the solution,
which then leads to the next iteration of identification,

solution, and reflection, and so on. Indeed, in 1978,
Susman and Evered5 developed the action research
cycle to include the five stages of diagnosing, action
planning, action taking, evaluating, and specifying
learning, which are then iterated, see Fig. 2.

Figure 2. The iterative working process used to create andcombine interdisciplinary knowledge in synthesis. There may
be parallel processes studying implementation with different
scientific methods (double arrows), and the knowledge iscombined in synthesis of the subsequent cycle.

For the development of solutions in the mixed
research method, performing such iterations is viewed
as beneficial to both understanding the environment(users, use cases, practice, etc.) and to specify, develop,
and refine the technological solution, since the iterative
approach provides repeated observations to detect clear
patterns. Further, it is noteworthy and important thatusers and environments change with the introduction of
the technological solutions, as studied through theiterations.
In order to perform these iterations to build
knowledge and to perform successful synthesis, rapid
prototyping provides a method for ensuring groundingof the technology development in human interaction
reality and grounding of the human interaction analyses
in the technological reality.
Rapid prototyping is characterized by making
iterations of prototypes in a fast manner, where thequick development of prototypes allows constantinteraction and testing in the environment (e.g. with theusers). This serves both as development of the system
specifications themselves and as grounding in reality.
Since the rapid prototyping approach recognizes that all
requirements cannot be specified a priori, in contrast to

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
24

H. H. Lund

the waterfall approach, the requirements are learned andsatisfied incrementally. Hence, small improvements areconstantlyimplementedandaligned
withusers/environment.
According to the ASTM Standard,6 in contrast to thewaterfall approach of preparing “requirements anddesign documents that describe the needed system, rapid
prototyping methods concentrate on preparing aworking prototype. Users and developers learn thefunctional requirements and an appropriate systemdesign by interacting with a series of prototypes, each ofwhich is rapidly produced from a starting framework orfrom an earlier version. A prototype can evolve into anoperational system, it can serve as an exact behavioral
specification of an operational system, or it can be used
to explore the feasibility of a new idea or design which
can be incorporated in a larger system.”
Such rapid prototyping is attractive to perform
synthesis, not only because it creates the technologicalprototypes and advances, but also because it provides all
participants (researchers, professionals, users) a
common tool to meet around, share, and interact with,thus creating a common language and understanding,which is essential for the interdisciplinary research. The
concrete hands-on experience with the prototypes in theenvironment grounds abstract concepts in concrete
actions, which facilitates the creation of a commonlanguage and understanding amongst the participants.
The common understanding is further refined fast in therapid prototyping cycles.
This kind of cyclic action research method proposes
flexibility in the research design to meet the real needsin the environment. Cunningham stated this in 1976 as:“The action research process makes it highly unlikelythat the investigator will know exactly, or in advance,
the design of the inquiry. Since every execution has tobe evaluated and judged as to how effectively it meetsthe plan, revisions to fit new needs will be necessary. As
hypotheses are validated or invalidated by the interimresults, the problem may be redefined and thehypotheses and research methods modified.” 7 p. 218.
5. Discussion
Interestingly, the spiral of steps in action research as
proposed originally by Lewin4 seems widely to haveinfluenced other spiral models, which have become
known extensively in other engineering and scientificdisciplines such as software development,8,9 design, andconstructivist education.10 For instance, in the creative
thinking spiral, people imagine what they want to do,create based on their ideas, play with their creations,share their ideas and creations with others, and reflect
on their experiences—all of which leads them toimagine new ideas and new creations.
The iterative process needs to start somewhere.
Susman and Evered5 suggest that the cycle starts withthe diagnosing phase. Similarly, the imagine phaseprovides the start in the creative thinking spiral.10 Thiscan often be a difficult and abstract phase forresearchers and participants. It is our belief that theprocess can be kick-started in such a diagnosing orimagining phase by the introduction of technology
suitable for diagnosing, imaging and creating
prototypes. Such technology can ideally have a modular
expression to allow any user to easily construct,combine and create prototypes from those modules.
Based on a deep engineering and computer scienceknowledge on modular technology and embodied
artificial intelligence, it is possible to develop
technological modules that any user can easily
understand and construct with within a minute, e.g.
Refs. 2, 11, and 12. This provides an important handson involvement in the first phase, which makes it easierfor participants to ground the diagnosing andimagination in both the world reality and thetechnological reality.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank colleagues from theCenter for Playware, DTU for experimental research,
interdisciplinary collaboration, and methodologicaldiscussions which led to the formulation of thepresented research method.
References
1. W. Royce, Managing the Development of Large Software
Systems, in Proceedings of IEEE WESCON 26 (August,1970), pp. 1–9.
2. H. H. Lund, T. Klitbo and C. Jessen, Playware
Technology for Physically Activating Play, Artificial Lifeand Robotics Journal, 9:4 (2005) 165-174.
3. H. H. Lund, and P. Marti, Designing Modular Robotic
Playware, in Proc. of 18th IEEE Int. Symposium on
Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Ro-Man2009, IEEE Press, 2009), pp. 115-121.
4. K. Lewin, Action Research and Minority Problems,
Journal of Social Issues 2 (1946) 34-46.

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
25Playware Research Methodology

5. G. I. Susman, and R. D. Evered, An Assessment of the
Scientific Merits of Action Research, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23 (1978) 582-603.
6. ASTM International, Standard Guide for Rapid
Prototyping of Information Systems, E1340 − 05, (PA,USA, 2010).
7. B. Cunningham, Action Research: Toward a Procedural
Model, Human Relations 29:3 (1976) 215-238.
8. B. Boehm, A Spiral Model of Software Development andEnhancement, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering
Notes, ACM, 11:4 (August 1986) 14-24.
9. B. Boehm, A Spiral Model of Software Development andEnhancement, IEEE Computer, IEEE, 21:5 (May 1988)
61-72.
10. M. Resnick, Sowing the Seeds for a More CreativeSociety, Learning and Leading with Technology(December 2007).
11. H. H. Lund, Modular Playware Technology – A BriefHistorical Review, in Proceedings of 17th International
Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (ISAROB,Japan, 2012).
12. H. H. Lund,Anybody, Anywhere, Anytime – Robotics
with Social Impact through a Building Block Approach,in Proceedings of IEEE Advanced Robotics and Its Social
Impact (ARSO 2011, IEEE, 2012).

Published by Atlantis Press
Copyright: the authors
26