Researching sensitive topics: Adjusting cultural probes to research and identify design spaces for sensitive HCI.

Gregory Jackson

Interaction Design One-year master 15 Credits Spring Semester 2020 Supervisor: Maliheh Ghajargar 2

Table of contents:

Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Research Questions 5 Knowledge Contribution 6 Ethical/Privacy Concerns 6 Background 7 Sensitive-HCI 7 Psychotherapy X Design 10 Cultural Probes 11 Sensitive Research Methods 15 Design Process 19 ​Probe Design & Implementation 26 Introduction 26 ‘How to use’ 27 Task One - ‘Design an ‘honest’ Tinder’ 28 Task Two - ‘Design a ‘truthful’ porn’ 30 Task Three - ‘Sexual language’ 32 Task Four - ‘Build a personal and healthy sexual education’ 34 Task Five - ‘Find three sexual romanticisms in 5 minutes’ 35 Task Six - ‘Sweet Nothings’ 37 Task Seven - ‘5 Minute Debate’ 41 Task Eight - ‘A gender difference?’ 43 Task Nine - ‘Advertise actual norms’ 44 Task Ten - ‘Your thoughts’ 45 Key Results 46 Discussion 47 Future developments 52 Conclusion 52 Acknowledgements 53 Bibliography 54

3

Abstract

Research tools to identify sensitive topics and thus new opportunities to design for have grown in popularity in the last twenty years within HCI, with many projects and areas to note. However, the research tools used are still underdeveloped (Crabtree, 2003), and many universal designs of the 20th

century have failed to develop for more sensitive areas, bar the​ ​conventional young, non-disabled, white, cis-male​ ​(Clarkson, 2003). The topics discussed in the thesis are reviews and arguments for the use of an adapted cultural probe’s place to research sensitive topics, identify perhaps previously hidden

“sensitive-HCI”​ (Waycott et al. 2015) design spaces. The focus is on the tools to gather data, and discover design opportunities, rather than the particular and actual findings from the study.

4

Introduction

In current western society, we have a considerable advantage over our C19th and C20th predecessors in regards to what is viewed as acceptable in mainstream society; for example, sexuality, body standards, disability, race, religion, etc. and how these things are portrayed and judged. However, sensitive topics

(as defined by Lee as “​research which potentially poses a substantial threat, to those who are or have been part of it”​ (Lee, 1993, pg.4)) remain a delicate area in research and design. It can be mentally and emotionally draining for both researchers and researched (Lee, 1993) to manage these sensitivities

which, even now, have the potential to lead to compromised ethics and are “​more likely to have application in the ‘real world’” ​(Sieber and Stanley, 1988, p. 59).

This paper follows Farberow’s consideration of topics being sensitive if they address an established

cultural taboo, a subject that is described as​ “emotion-laden and fear-provoking or if it represents some kind of threat to the participants in the study: the respondents, the researchers or the people close to

them”​ (Condomines & Hennequin, 2014, p. 2). Within this definition, the project uses research around sexual themes and sexuality as an example of addressing a sensitive topic.

Although the extent of research and design focus on sensitive topics is seemingly on the rise - Bardzell et al. describe that research towards sexual themes has apparently still not had a comprehensive exploration of methodologies within HCI, with many gaps still visible (2011). Also, within the field, there has been a trend to ​“desexualise technology”​ (Brewer et al. 2006, p. 1). Both Bardzell et al. and Brewer et al. call for a future that promotes industry-level research in this area. This paper aims to be a part of answering that call, reviewing current research practices, and putting forward a version of an adapted cultural probe to research and identify subjects within sensitive/sexual topics and thus better informing and guiding future research and design spaces within HCI.

When discussing the adaption of Gaver’s cultural probe to one that is focused on dealing with sensitive subjects, the thesis follows Bellotti et al. (2003), in their approach to probe use:

“The cultural probe is not a prototype, but a tool to help determine which kinds of technologies would be interesting to design in the future. A successful technology probe is open-ended and explicitly co-adaptive: we expect the users to adapt to the new technology but also adapt it in creative new ways, for their own purposes”. (Bellotti et al. 2003, pg. 2).

5

This idea can be furthered, especially discussing Hirsch who states “​working more closely with a greater variety of people and perspectives enriches our experience and enables our field to find greater relevance and impact”​ (2020, p. 8). The idea stands particularly true when it comes to designing technology that regards sex and sexuality, as it crosses the “​physical, emotional, psychological, social, cultural, political, legal, philosophical, moral, ethical, spiritual and religious dimensions of both everyday life and academic

disciplines” ​(Bardzell et al. 2011, pg. 701).

It is critical to note that the adapted cultural probe is not, and was not intended to be simple or an out of the box solution to the universal span of sensitive topics. It is instead focusing on the development of social research methods within HCI to gather sensitive data from the participants' sexual cultures. The adapted cultural probe also does not make any claims to aid in the researchers understanding of the circumstances, thoughts and opinions of the participants, as the research team will hold their own biases, and beliefs, but instead aims at informing the research team in the participants’ perception of normal, and/or to explore the perhaps yet unidentified opinions through conversation. This concept relies on both researcher and researched forming a style of open relationship, self-identifying biases, entertaining notions that aren’t necessarily their own, and keeping an open mind.

The concept of creating research tools to identify (and thus design for) sensitive subjects in HCI is necessary, particularly in the current high paced society, as Clulow states, the variety of perspectives and opinions of each individual are highly abstract, while both the circumstances and attitudes that individuals hold are not resolute entities but instead ever-changing, dynamic concepts (2019), which could leave the

research behind. As Gaver states “​would be a mistake to dismiss them on that ground: for unless we start to respect the full range of values that make us human, the technologies we build are likely to be dull and uninteresting at best, and dehumanising at worst“ ​(Gaver 2001).

The next chapter will document and assess the literature review appropriate to these topics: current sensitive-HCI projects addressing particularly sensitive topics, psychotherapy tools and discuss the merits of adapted cultural probes and highlight the possibilities they offer for future HCI.

Research Questions

RQ1: What are adapted cultural probes place in identifying and informing design spaces for sensitive settings?

6

The primary research question concerns researching practical ways adapted cultural probes can be used to inform sensitive-HCI research and design spaces.

Due to the vast field around designing/researching for sensitive topics, the project proposes the specific subject of romanticism/sexual norms to limit the scope and catch of the research to manage the focus of the project better. A secondary research question will be the prompt of this examination.

RQ2: To what extent do romantic and sexual norms/romanticisms affect everyday discourse within society?

This secondary research question raises several interesting issues underlying the main research question and its platform to discourse on topics within sensitive areas. The inspiration behind this question comes from philosopher and author Alain De Botton, who makes the argument for the idea that the philosophy of

romanticism has “​had a devastating impact on the ability of ordinary people to lead successful emotional lives ​and who instead calls for a​ post-romantic theory” ​(De Botton, 2019, pg. 132), that pulls away from a vision of “​what is ‘normal’ in love”​ (De Botton, 2019, pg. 129).

Knowledge Contribution

The aims of the project is to increase the understanding of the HCI community by exploring and trialling an adaption of cultural probes and the use in researching and identification of design spaces that are within the sensitive topics area by drawing on an interdisciplinary set of practices and methodologies, such as sociology and psychotherapy. Separately, the methods themselves should also function as an engine to drive further exploration and research in this area (sexuality/topics of a sexual nature as called upon by both Bardzell et al. (2011) and Brewer et al. (2006)).

Ethical/Privacy Concerns

Due to the project focusing on a subject of a particularly sensitive nature by design, it is essential to record the ethical approach applied to data and information provided by the focus group. All data

gathered will be unidentifiable as defined by GDPR “​to determine whether a natural person is identifiable, account should be taken of all the means reasonably likely to be used, such as singling out, either by the controller or by another person to identify the natural person directly or indirectly ... This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes”. ​(Recital 26 - Not applicable to anonymous data, 2018).

7

Even though the project covers experimental methodologies intended to create a platform to facilitate and simplify future research within the field, that in itself cannot in any way be taken as suggesting that there is not a noticeable difference between what is right and what is wrong within sexual topics. While attitudes and social nuances towards those rights and wrongs may differ between different societies and social, ethnic, and religious groups, the rule of law continues to apply. As a research project based in Sweden, Swedish law applies in all circumstances, including rape, the age of consent, sexual assault, pornography, grooming, etc. Anything that runs counter to Swedish law falls outside the remit of this paper and will not be part of the discussion.

That said, there is also a critical way to address specific topics in research with a soft focus and one that is ethically sound. As the researcher is himself white, straight, cis-male, it is appreciated that there are many areas that he potentially does not/cannot see, easily understand or recognise. It is of note as however much preplanning and hope of empathetic and mutual benefit between participants and researcher; there may be issues that arise that the researcher could not have planned for at the opening and within the ethical application of the study.

Background

Sensitive-HCI

The difficulty of research concerning sensitive topics and working with participants who might be considered vulnerable, within HCI is not a contemporary problem; neither is it purely isolated to the field - with fields researching sensitive topics spanning over many areas; Politics (Wiederman, 2002), Social Work (Rubin, 2011), Pedagogy (MacAndrew et al. 2001), management sciences (Condomines et al. 2014), Sociology (Gelles, 1978; Saeed et al. 2019; Skinner, 1998), Behavioural Science (Lee et al. 1990), Design Research (Hirsch. 2020), HCI (Bardzell et al. 2011; Almeida et al. 2016; Davis et al. 2015) and Interaction Design (Helms, 2019).

HCI research with sensitive topics or “sensitive-HCI” (Waycott et al. 2015) is growing increasingly towards

the study of​ ​sensitive life experiences​,​ that either place researched in a vulnerable state, focuses on vulnerable participants or concern sensitive topics such as “​gender transition, domestic abuse, romantic relationship dissolution, bereavement, and even genocide”​ (Herron et al. 2016, pg.1). With the growing highlighting and continuing interest around these complex human experiences and emotions, the difficulty of researching within real-life settings is becoming more noted, and an increasing interest in the ethics and challenges that both researchers and studied face are gathering interest (Waycott et al. 2015).

8

However, the challenges that are specifically novel to HCI as a discipline, are designing for the present; establishing an ethical and empathetic approach to the design of new technologies (Thieme et al. 2014), and the future; envisioning and maintaining this view for any new technologies (McNaney & Vines, 2015). This idea is a specific strand in the considerations explored by Bardzell et al. (2011) who recognised and argued the need for additional education to be undertaken in HCI’s approach to sex and other sensitive areas.

The problems of not considering the research in this area can be especially apparent in social work - with the topics that are uncomfortable to discuss usually being sensitive societal topics and frequently avoided in open communication (Rubin, 2011). A significant role of the social-work group facilitator is to assist the group in confronting taboo issues. However, sometimes the leader may indirectly/subliminally guide or restrict conversations on a taboo topic due to their own personal unease or discomfort with the subject matter (Shulman, 2002), leaving sensitive, potentially harmful issues unexplored. The same principle, when viewed from an HCI standpoint, makes a point of why research methods for identifying sensitive matters are important. This idea is a specific strand in the considerations explored by Bardzell et al. (2011) which recognised and argued the need and their call to action for additional to be undertaken in HCI’s approach to sex and other taboo areas. The case for this is also made in Brewer et al. (2006) who describes the current lack of understanding of how technology might be applied in these areas - which, if left unaddressed, could be an opportunity missed and facilitate poor, ethically misguided research resulting in inaccurate and incomplete designs and research outcomes, adding another essential ideology to the project.

There is a slow but steady growth in HCI projects that place themselves in the field of research into sensitive topics. Recent key study projects that have focussed on sexual themes (and specifically within HCI/Interaction Design fields) include; Queer HCI (DeVito et al., 2020; Carrasco & Kerne, 2018; Spiel et al. 2019)”, Sexual Health (Wood et al. 2018; Almeida et al. 2014; Almeida et al. 2016; Eaglin & Bardzell, 2011), Intimacy (Su et al. 2019; Gibbs et al. 2006), Aesthetics (Bertelsen & Petersen, 2007; S. Bardzell & Bardzell, 2006), Pleasure (Bardzell & Bardzell, 2011), Communication (Noessel, 2006), Embodied (Hansen & Kozel, 2007), Education (Kaye & Goulding, 2004), Art (Boas, 2019; Dawson, et al. 2018) and Machine Learning/AI (George, 2019). Each of these projects has explored and uniquely dealt with their subject matter, drawing on and appropriating interdisciplinary tools from varied fields which have a direct academic interest in sexual themes. The range of these is broad including, among many possible examples, sexology, sociology, art, philosophy, pedagogy and psychology. However, to date, it remains both that a breakdown of tools proven to be successful in identifying these issues remains to be identified, along with a clear structured methodology to allow these sensitive subjects to be explored in greater depth in an ethical manner. The HCI field stands to benefit from updated investigative and research tools, 9

and offer a way forward in addressing the inherent problems in researching and designing for sensitive subjects.

The following sections describe a few projects of note that can be viewed as within the field of “sensitive-HCI” (and that hold particular interest to the thesis project’s interest in the design/research space of sensitive issues), and particularly regarding the sub-realm of sex.

Su et al. host a project that discusses the importance of considering the future of sex and intimate technologies. As these technologies are becoming ever popular, the discuss the importance of designing for the future and primarily focusing the expected growth of the use of sex robots, and their place in providing ​“embodied fictions” ​ and ​“care of the self”​ (2019, pg. 1). This project defines its significance in HCI by referencing that humans already establish relationships with other​ “non-human entities such as pets (real, virtual, or robotic), robots, and virtual agents”, ​and discuss the potential “​salaciousness, controversy, prejudice, and taboo have the combined potential to prevent the scientific community from participating in the shaping of near horizon wellness technologies.” (​ Su et al. 2019, pg. 2). The conclusion the projects arrives at is the importance that if the future is indeed one that includes sex-robots, then there will need to identify and design for sexual intimacy between human-robot relations, and thus a design space that the user will hold not just embodied, intimate interaction, but a style of psychological investment in the robot which will need to be accommodated for (Su et al. 2019). The conclusion echoes the point McNaney et al. (2015) notes that surrounds the importance of future technologies being identified and discussed within sensitive-HCI.

Almeida et al. have designed an ​“augmented system designed to support pelvic fitness in wome​n” (2016, pg.1), which manages the use of the mobile phone as a ​“tool for embodied discovery” ​(2016, pg.1). This project has identified through previous research, an opportunity to design a kit that intends to promote self-awareness and learning/deconstruction of the female body through a ‘smart’ piece of underwear and a joint application that uses the front camera of the mobile device (2016).

“Observations and results from this study provided insights into perceptions of the body and sensibilities toward wearable and embodied learning held by the participants; revealed that qualities of body knowledge can be affected by topics of taboo, misinformation, and lack of self-awareness”. (​ Almeida et al. 2016, pg.2)

The project was in overall deemed a success, and took advantage of the previously identified use of humour and laughter in the discussion, to diminish the idea of taboo in this particular subject - and 10

revealed that this is an underexplored area in HCI and women’s health. Again, following the noted challenges that sensitive HCI holds in the design of present technologies (Thieme et al. 2014).

Another study of particular interest and relevance (although not directly HCI) to further investigate the current sensitivity around sexual topics in education, is the 2018 joint research study ​‘They giggle and I crush over them’: porn as pedagogy at Tate Modern (​ Dawson et al., 2018) - a collaborative art, video and text work project. It was conducted by an interdisciplinary team consisting of; sex educator Kate Dawson

and artist group ‘​Bedfellows​’ comprising; Chloe Cooper, Phoebe Davies and Jenny Moore, (Dawson et al. 2018).

“The project asks whether, as artists trained in visual literacy, we might be able to deconstruct the dominant tropes of the image-heavy sexual landscape we are living in” ​(Dawson, et al. 2018, pg. 2) by using a combination of “​Sex as education. Sex re-education. Investigating desire, consent, sexual identities and feminist porn” ​(Dawson et al. 2018, pg. 2). These methods translated into the creation of multiple videos providing an education into the alternative side of ‘taboo’ sexual techniques - showing loving and trusting ways that can be central to ‘extreme’ sexual acts (for example fisting, anal fisting, cum swapping, BDSM) and which can be experienced in both heterosexual and queer relationships.

What was of particular significance in this project is the manner in which it used a sophisticated, tolerant, soft-edged approach to sensitive subjects that are usually seen as extreme in society in order to drive a more considered and re-educational approach. This calm and measured approach to expressing and challenging thoughts had a good response from participants who analysed the experience.

Although the project mentioned above elicited these participant effects through their tempered introduction to sexual actions by way of video, art and performance; there is reason to believe that similar influence can be built using less graphic methods, which will be investigated within the confines of the thesis project.

Psychotherapy X Design

As the definition of psychotherapy and the procedures associated could fill a whole thesis on its own, the

argument has condensed the area to be studied by following Buchanan’s description: “​Psychotherapy encompasses a broad array of psychological procedures that typically address individual wellbeing or

self-understanding” ​(2019, pg. 1). This description continues by giving a general explanation of the procedures involved as “​loosely structured verbal interaction between a therapist and client, an interaction modelled on the doctor-patient relationship” ​ (2019, pg. 2). Psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic tools 11

employ a range of discursive strategies and instrumental techniques – including “​interpretation, suggestion, injunction, exposure, and practice” ​(Buchanan, 2019, pg. 2) which some seem to hold much potential within the HCI field.

It is essential to highlight that the research project is in total alignment with the approach proposed by

Hirsch (2020) in particular to “​comparing design research to psychotherapy is not to suggest that design research is equivalent to psychotherapy”​ (2020, pg. 2). There are three critical reasons to emphasise this distinction:

The research participants have not lent their participation in the project to gain change or to correct problems, their “​difficulties in understanding [themselves], trusting others, communicating successfully… and feeling adequate serene, confident, authentic, direct and unashamed” ​ (De Botton, 2019, pg.53). This is the aim of psychotherapy, which is significantly different from what design research seeks to deliver - the adoption of psychotherapy methods to gain more significant insights and understanding to guide study and project thinking.

Psychotherapy and other therapists recognise there is a significant chasm between what we, as individuals, feel comfortable discussing in daily life, compared with the deeper and darker thoughts that continuously play through people’s minds (De Botton, 2019). Their focus is on a slow and careful drawing out and analysis of sensitive, often societal forbidden thoughts and mindsets, areas that relate directly to current research on sensitive subjects, in order to gain an understanding of mindsets and behaviours and to inform the basis of work on emotional or other troubling reactions. Therapists’ responsibility and inherent skill sets create an honest relationship with the patient, allowing them to work on upsetting issues, while continually reassuring us what we say is valuable (De Botton, 2019). Essentially, one of the (many-faceted) sides of psychotherapy is allowing the patient to find the remedy for their problems, by

allowing ground for our self-exploration. “​Therapy sessions allow for emotional processing and a site for telling stories in a certain way” ​(McLeod, 1997, pg. 123, 81). The idea of allowing this grounding and style of relationship could hold potential in the discussion and openness of taboo subjects between researcher and researched.

Cultural Probes

“They may seem whimsical, but it would be a mistake to dismiss them on that ground: for unless we start to respect the full range of values that make us human, the technologies we build are likely to be dull and uninteresting at best, and de-humanising at worst”. (Gaver 2001) 12

In the last twenty years, designers have taken the use of cultural probes which have concerned themself

with the exploration of specific design spaces. Probes as defined by Bellott are​ “​ ...​an instrument that is deployed to find out about the unknown - to hopefully return with useful or interesting data”​ (2003, pg. 1)—initially created by ‘artist-designers’ in the Presence Project (Gaver et al. 1999) to prompt inspiration for design activity in spaces for the elderly. The original probe setup that Gaver et al. provided to the

elderly participants was a kit that contained​ ​maps, postcards, a camera, photo album & a media diary​, which the design team then collected data with overtime, offering glimpses into the participants’ lives -

building semi-factual narratives for the designers can then iterate design notions from​ ​(Gaver et al. 1999). It is also vital to note that there is always a gamble in using probes - as there is the possibility that they will fail or gather unexpected results (​Bellotti et al. 2003)​, which can either be seen as a positive or negative, depending on the expectations of the researchers.

Gaver has consequently discussed the concept of moving the design space into more of ‘every day’, and away from ideas as production and efficiency, post-modern allows for a more playful character of human life to be understood in a more sense. That said, the idea of ‘playfulness’ is not confined to what can be

interpreted as entertainment, but instead, more complex focusing on how people ​“explore, wonder, love, worship, and waste time” c​ ollectively and involve themselves with activities that are ​“meaningful and valuable”​ (Gaver 2001).

It is of note that Gaver’s Cultural Probes in this definition are not analytic tools but rather ‘reflections’ of the local culture that participants self identify and are used to inspire design (Crabtree, 2001) as Gaver

describes “​[Cultural Probes] offer fragmentary glimpses into the rich texture of people’s lives. They allow us to build semi-factual narratives, from which design proposals emerge like props for a film”. ​(Gaver 2002)

The classic cultural approach as defined and deployed by Gaver in the Presence Project has seen various iterations and evolutions in the concluding decades, with adaptations that Boehner et al. describe

as “​‘x’ probes” (Boehner, 2007, pg.1)​. These probes cover a wide variety of topics ​–​ Identity Probes, Technical Probes, Urban Probes, Domestic Probes, Value Probes, and empathy Probes, and “​redirect [the participants] focus either to places (e.g. the home or the city) or to the desired result (e.g. the identification of values or the development of empathy between designers and users)” (Boehner, 2007, pg.1).

Informational probes, as determined by Crabtree are adaptations of the traditional cultural probes and were deployed in a design space focusing on developing computer support for;​ “former psychiatric 13

patients living in residential care settings, for older members of the community, and disabled people living

at home” ​(Crabtree et al. 2003 pg.1). The informational probes focused on the use of social research methods to gather sensitive data from the participants' local cultures, and thus informing the design exercise. The probes contrasted to Gaver’s version of cultural probes as they aimed at taking consideration of the more mundane activities the participants displayed, as opposed to the remarkable. A focus on how the participants’ live their everyday lives, routines, circumstances, concerns and so on - being treated as means to facilitating a co-operative analysis, not as inherently inspirational, and to learn the needs of differently-abled people (Crabtree et al. 2003).

The informational probe that Crabtree et a (2003) created holds similarities to Gaver’s cultural probe, although utilising a more comprehensive array of devices, including: postcards, a map of the local area, a polaroid camera, a disposable camera, a photo album, a voice-activated dictaphone, a visitors book, a scrapbook, 'post-it' notes, pens, pencils and crayons and a personal diary to record the participant’s daily activities. The probes were handed out to the resident ​“like a birthday or Christmas present” (​ Crabtree et al. 2003, pg. 4)​ ​accompanied by a set of instructions. Crabtree et al. perceive that the tools listed are not original in their approach to the data gathering. However, they delivered a unique set of data when envisioned with the design setting of gathering information, not just as reflections.

Crabtree et al. determine that the informational probe deployed was a success in that it provided a large amount of information and perspicacity into the sensitive areas in the participant’s daily lives - and was a

useful tool in researchers’ repertoire for unique or novel situations, and as noted the adapted probes​ “led us to appreciate their value as an important first stage in the requirements gathering process”​ (Crabtree et al. 2003, pg. 8). Leading to an appreciation of the requirements in initial research processes, they showed encouragement to further provide the foundation for a continuation of sensitive conversations, and insight into the needs of the end-user. Following this idea, it was also of note that the design team found that by

“​promoting collaboration, [the probes] work to actively involve users in the design process, rather than cast them as docile victims of research and passive recipients of design” ​ (Crabtree et al. 2003, pg. 8) - creating a symbolic relationship between researcher and researched.

However, they also discuss the issues found within the project - that although the probes ​“provided a great deal of information and insight into participant’s daily lives in sensitive settings, which provides the

basis for ‘continuing conversation’” ​(Crabtree et al. 2003, pg. 8), they also made sure to state that the probes and research methods presented do not make any claims to engage in any kind of ​“emancipatory programme of reform” (​ Crabtree et al. 2003, pg. 8). This idea is thus followed up a statement denying the research teams lack personal experiences with the participants’ disabilities probed, their accounts are not

either biased and partial - they back up this concept with the shared vision of Fennel et al. (1989), “​For 14

studies which bring researchers into direct contact with their field, but the real criteria for research studies are that they should be systematic, open-minded and openly reported. If these criteria are met, readers can decide safely for themselves how to treat the results” ​(Crabtree et al. 2003, pg. 8).

The previous statement from Crabtree et al. regarding the lack of bias that the researchers have is a tricky and not entirely clear area. It can be understood that they may not have perceived any biases in the research, as they have been working alongside the participants and working with the raw data gained from the probe, but they offer no personal evidence or review from the participants to back up this statement. It is also interesting to discuss, as Clulow asserts that the variety of perspectives and opinions of each individual are abstract, and the circumstances and attitudes that individuals hold are not rigid entities but instead ever-changing, dynamic designs (2019) - the informational probe that Crabtree and his research grouping may have gained further insight into the data if they planned in their process a return to the participants to reaffirm and explore data into the information gathered, perhaps making use of reviewing tools, possibly such as active listening to confirm the data and to gain a more in-depth portion of the obtained data.

Another curious evolution and branch away from Gaver’s Cultural probe are seen in project ​interLiving ​ by Bellotti et al. and their production of the ​technological probe (2003). T​ he technical probes were designed to gathering data to create new technologies, and was split into two different versions and held three main goals:

the social science goal of understanding the needs and desires of users in a real-world setting, the engineering goal of field- testing the technology, and the design goal of inspiring users and researchers to think about new technologies. (Bellotti et al. 2003, pg. 1)

The overarching goal of the project was to gather data for the creation of technologies for family members, by “​adapting a cultural probe in combining the social science goal of collecting information about the use and the users of the technology in a real-world setting” (Bellotti et al. 2003, pg. 2)​, and was defined as a technological probe opposed to a prototype or a product due to particular features: functionality - primarily ease of use, flexibility - open interpretation is encouraged, usability - not reiterated & changed on user feedback, Logging - collecting data & help to generate new ideas for new technology, design phase - introduced early into the design phase to challenge preexisting ideas (Bellotti et al. 2003, pg. 2).

The probes were deployed to three families based in Sweden, France & the US respectively and the researchers deemed the informational probes did hold potential as a new design tool, with the 15 contribution of clear data sets that the probes gathered allowed for explicit future ideation and design spaces to respond to the different families needs - the team concluded with breaking the project down into three areas of success:

First, they helped reveal practical needs and playful desires within and between distributed families. Second, they provided real-life use scenarios to motivate discussion in interviews and workshops. Finally, they introduced families to new types of technologies beyond the accustomed PC-monitor-mouse-keyboard setup, which we believe encouraged them to consider more whimsical and creative uses of technology in our design workshops. (Bellotti et al. 2003, pg. 7)

It was noted that two of the probes encountered technical issues - although this wasn’t considered to be a considerable problem & the overall probes were a success.

Although many of these adaptions and variations of probes have been deemed a success by the researchers and designers implementing them, there are have also been concern raised by their original creators (Gaver et al. 2004), who regard the move away from the more “​playful, subjective approach”, which​ “let valuable information slip away” (​ Gaver et al. 2004, pg.1)​ - ​therefore missing the original point of probes. This concept will be elaborated on in the chapter describing the production of the probes for the project.

The next chapter of this document will explain the methods chosen to explore the defined design space.

Sensitive Research Methods

Research within the social sciences for sensitive topics and with vulnerable people have to lead to specific innovative and alternative research methods being practised (Liamputtong, 2011). This more original approach to working in the social sciences, however, seems to have had a common interest and been implemented in parallel within HCI & design in various versions of cultural probes, which will be discussed below.

Semi-Structured Interviews A post probe interview to both gauge and investigate the participants’ thoughts and answers, while also determining the therapeutic benefits or effects and the further research developments that it may provide.

Hirsch describes semi-structured interview techniques in qualitative research methods as ​having potential for participants to experience psychotherapeutic effects through their involvement in design research 16

(Hirsch, 2020, pg 1) and that further advantage is gained from working more closely with a greater variety

of people and ​perspectives enriches our experience and enables our field to find greater relevance and impact ​(Hirsch, 2020, pg 8).

Martin and Hanington define interviews as processes that ​may be structured and follow a script of questions, or relatively unstructured, allowing for flexible detours in a conversational format​ (Martin et al. 2012, pg.102) - thus a semi-structured interview allows for this conversational format. To achieve this, the interview will follow a generalised script implemented with active listening, allowing for the ​generation of responses which are embedded within the participants’ experiences (​ Brannen, 1993, pg 333) and potentially producing ​therapy-like effects (​ Hirsch, 2020, pg 2). However, as Hirsch points out, not every qualitative interview is therapeutic, but many interviews do hold this potential. It is also of note that research is not the only field of study that has reported these effects (Hirsch, 2020).

Active listening A strategy of active listening is defined by De Botton as a succession of ​very quiet but significant prompts to help (others) develop and stick at the points (they) are circling (​ 2019, pg. 57). This is elaborated on by Fassaert et al. who discuss the benefits for medical practitioners as in itself being ​therapeutic and ameliorative [to the patient]… unravel the reasons for visiting the physician from the perspective of the patient … gaining information, e.g. by the use of open-ended questions, summaries and clarification … [with] patients themselves seem[ing] to value the personal, active and listening doctor most ... the very act of listening assumes that there is something to listen to, i.e. that the patient has the opportunity to talk and

express himself ​(2007, pg.258-259). Each of these points creates an opportunity for a better collection of data from the participants whilst creating a potentially therapeutic response and a valued researcher/researched relationship.

Humour and Design When designing for ‘taboo’, the use of humour and laughter has been shown to help combat feelings of awkwardness and embarrassment and to support learning within these fields (Almeida et al. 2016),

(Johnson, 1990). Humour can be used to complement the method of deconstruction - ​to unravel the complex, contradictory nature of social dichotomies by criticising a particular norm, while suggesting another, equally problematic one ​(Saukko, 2003, pg. 151).

Photo Ethnography Photo Ethnography is a tool that uses photographic imagery, carried out by either the research participants or the researcher - and are then discussed with the research team to describe the participants’ world. It allows a space for vulnerable participants to discuss private issues in public to tell 17

their own stories, and is generally an accessible tool, being used by children and others who are unable to express themselves verbally (Liamputtong, 2011).

Reflexive Photography Reflexive photography (or photobiography) differs from photo ethnography as it asks the research participants to take photos, which Liamputtong argues that ‘gives voices to the researched’ (Liamputtong, 2011, pg.144). The self-generation of images allows the participants to describe and make visual comments on the self and their physical environments, supporting the research team in understanding the studies identities and allowing a more comprehensive understanding that traditional interviewing can offer (Liamputtong, 2011).

Video Diaries An interesting study using video diaries is Rich and Chalfen (1998) researching children with asthma. The children recorded their own lives and worlds, to create a visual narrative of their day-to-day, revealing never seen situations. This footage offered not just data, but provided evidence and was used as tools for influencing policy.

Video diaries as described Liamputtong (2011), offered the chance to both record the participants' own lives and worlds, creating a visual narrative, and showing previously unseen situations but also offer up tools to influence policy as an addition to raw data.

Drawing Methods Marginalised mainly in social sciences, visual and word-based methods, when combined with interviews, offers a way of exploring both multiplicity and complexity that is based on the human experience.

Guillemin concludes that the drawing methodology provides ‘a rich and insightful research to explore their own world and hence it’s suitable for conducting research with vulnerable people’. She then goes on to note that drawings are most effective when combined with in-depth interviews.

Although as discussed by Liamputtong (2011), that drawing method is primarily marginalised in the social sciences, they hold great potential and offer a way of exploring “both of multiplicity and complexity that is the base of social research in human experience” (Liamputtong, 2011, pg. 148), and again offer a rich insight to those, who may not have the ability to articulate their emotions and thoughts - and grants the ability for the participants to tell their story in their own way. It is also noted that alongside most of these tools, it passes more significant results when paired with an interview to discuss the drawings, allowing for reflection. 18

19

Design Process

Figure 1. The design process

20

The design process (Figure 1) that supports the project is an adjustment of the Design Council’s

double-diamond model which has been modified by Barnes et al. to support projects​ “where a continued and intense user and community input is required​” ​(Barnes et al. 2015, pg. 13).​ The adapted model diverges from the standard as it follows a division in the development of the process, following two paths with one that supports the exploration of the design problem. At the same time, the second is aimed at exploring the​ “emotional, behavioural and personal growth” (Barnes et al. 2015, pg. 13) ​that happens inside the process. The allowance for both researcher and participants to move through the process and sensitive topics, guided by their curiosity, personal reflection and honesty and is a style of a feedback loop, with adjustments being made to the project as evaluations from both parties lead to refined and informed processes. ​(Barnes et al. 2015)

“The result is a process, which places the focus not on what users and community members can add to the design process (and resulting design), but rather an indication of activities and behaviours that support the creative exploration of a problem context.” (Barnes et al. 2015, pg. 13)

As the thesis is aimed at finding a concrete way of accessing sensitive data, this alternative design process path is very relevant, as the exploration of sensitive research means assuming a trust with the participant and embracing the responsibility within of the ethics of application, instead of finding it as a complication to the project, and forging a collaborative process in sensitive-HCI.

Four major phases can be identified through the process which has the opportunity to be reiterated once the final stage is complete (though not performed in the limited timescale of this project) to define further and concentrate tools explored.

Phase One - Discover Designer lead probe sketching (Buxton) and ideation.

Phase Two - Define The implication of the probe and the use of probe tools to explore/research design space.

Phase Three - Develop Joint analysis of data gathered.

Phase Four - Deliver Review and discussion surrounding the success of tools implemented. Followed by open communication of concepts, potential additions or revisions to the tools and alterations for resulting probes.

21

In-practice

Phase One Phase One consisted of sketching (Figure 2-3) (Buxton), outlining and considering areas that the researched literature review had shown promise in for working with sensitive-HCI, and various adapted probes (Figure 4-5). A conceptual draft version of the probe was discussed and noted in multiple iterations, which followed considerations of using tasks that used: Photo Ethnography, Reflexive Photography, Video Diaries, Drawing Methods, Use of humour, Interview/Active listening placement, and aforementioned probe adaptations.

Figure. 2-5 - Early Sketches

22

Figure. 6-8 - Secondary Sketches

The (Buxton) sketches achieved (Figure 6-8), set the solid groundwork for the probe - refining and identifying which tools from the literature review showed promise in the thesis’ own practice regarding sexuality, especially with regards to the secondary research question. Once the concepts were 23 written/mapped, a secondary Buxton sketch process was taken, allowing for more precise and visual development of the probe (Figure 9).

Figure. 9 - Detailed Sketches

This primary stage of sketching (Buxton) was then followed by a more physically sketched draft version of the probe. Which took the previously discussed, and sketched visions of the tools/activities implemented, and started visioning how they would work in the final probe (Figure 10)

Figure. 10 - Physical Sketches

24

The final version of sketching was used as both a quick mockup of the digital PDF version, drawn by hand to gauge the amount of space needed, then drafted digitally, and then after printing and addressing any thoughts, alternative versions, issues or typos found finalised (Figure 10).

Figure. 10 - Digital Sketches

The probe was then printed and saddle-stitched (A5) and posted (Figure 11-14), or emailed to the participant as a digital PDF, to either print at home, or to complete online. 25

Figure 11-14. The cultural probe booklet - physical

Phase Two In phase two, the probes were deployed to the participants both via post and email, and a timescale of when they needed to be completed was given. It was noted multiple times to the participants that if they had any problems in any of the tasks, or didn’t understand, they should contact the researcher - this was presented in a very open way, attempting to level the hierarchy and to communicate that both researcher and researched are working together.

Phase Three Phase three received the probes back, reviewed the data collected, and then held semi-structured interviews with the participants, researchers using active listening to gather further data, or taking key concepts depicted in the probes and discussing in more detail.

Phase Four Phase four was based around a review and a discussion with the participants surrounding the success of tools implemented. This was then followed by an open communication of concepts, potential additions or revisions to the tools - which would be implemented in the second version of phase one.

26

The adapted cultural probe can be broken down into five sections, and each tool or task will be reviewed in the next chapter;

To answer the initial design question ​‘What are adapted cultural probes place in identifying and informing design spaces for sensitive settings?’​, we must first discuss the findings that the secondary research question proposed - to research towards ‘the extent that romantic and sexual norms/romanticisms affect everyday discourse within society?’. The following results and analysis are taken from the results from the probe and backed up with a post-interview with five of the participants that covered their responses, thoughts about the probe, any ideas for the future versions, recommendations and open discussion towards the project. Certain tasks will then have a listed, and generalised design opportunity within Sensitive-HCI - however, these can just be viewed as examples which would need to be confirmed through future probes and interviews with a broader audience.

Probe Design & Implementation

The focus grouping made up of ten participants: 1 Male / 9 Female 9 between 26-30 / 1 between 19-25 All in relationships 9 Monogamous / 1 Polymogamous 1 Engaged / 3 Cohabiting / 5 Relationships 3 Bi-Sexual / 2 Hetrosexual / 3 Mostly Herosexual / 1 Pansexual 6 British / 1 Swedish / 1 Canadian / 1 Australian 2 Scotland / 2 England / 1 Canada / 1 New Zealand / 2 Australia

Nine participants managed to complete the booklet to varying degrees of completion, with one participant not submitting a document (at time of writing). None of the participants completed every task in the cultural probe.

Introduction (Figure 15) To adhere to Hirsch’s (2020) reasoning that constructing a transparent and honest rapport between researcher and participants is favourable, the introduction is pivotal to this objective as it is a platform to communicate an understanding of the workshop for the participants. Within the semi-formal introduction, there was a breakdown of why this topic is of importance to research, the participants’ role, a trigger warning, an explanation of the participants’ ability to leave tasks they don’t feel comfortable with, and an 27 acknowledgement of their participation in the study. The section concluded with a physical signature from the researcher (in physical versions - digital versions will use a digital signature).

Figure 15. Introduction Page

‘How to use’ (Figure 16) Comparable to the overview of tasks which would be held in person by a researcher in traditional workshops (Martin et al. 2012). The ‘how to use’ section will be a general breakdown of how to use the probe, what approaches the participants can use, and a soft deadline for when to return the probe.

28

Figure 16. How to Page / Instructions for first three tasks

Task One - ‘Design an ‘honest’ Tinder’ (Figure 17) This exercise asked participants to communicate a more ‘truthful’ tinder (mobile dating application) profile for four different participants. This task uses generative research (Martin et al. 2012), to allow for empathetic, creative outlets for the participants to contemplate their perception of what is deemed acceptable on dating sites/apps and to consider against what are generally ubiquitously within society

viewed as oddities and insecurities, though are “​rarely spoken about in the reserved and cautious public sphere” ​(De Botton, 2019, pg 71).

The task encourages participants to break the societal and conventional accepted standards of the user by focusing on the imagined vulnerabilities that the fictional person may hold, thereby- prompting an entirely unedited view of the user that is so normal, yet so rarely examined.

The initial task generated results that generally dictated that the majority of the participants (who took part) recognised that there was a trend to exhibit the user of dating apps as an idealised version of themselves. This was realised through the participant’s use of deconstruction and humorous 29

exaggerations, which matches Saukko’s explanation of ​destabilising binaries by unravelling the way which binaries render the other side of the equation invisible and natural ​(2003, pg. 131)

Figure 17. Completed examples (Task one)

This principle was confirmed in post interviews regarding the task and showed that the participants had a trend to unknowing use a version of deconstructing, in a blend of aggressive, humourous and sombre tones:

“We are going to break up in 2 years but want to have some fun before that”

“I am busy as fuck and will only sleep with you once. Don’t expect any warmth from me.”

“I have a really fucked up attitude towards women, and I won’t respect you, I’ll ignore your calls the day after & I don’t do foreplay”

“I don’t want to die alone”

30

“I have a mega food fetish for phallic foods. Message me to arrange a date we can eat together. Allergic to peanuts, not penis”

These three different ways of handling sensitive topics seemed to allow a platform for the discussion of quite emotional subjects such as divorce, childbearing age and fetishes. However, some of the participants found the task quite hard, confusing or disagreed with the content:

“I liked the tinder game, although also felt like it was a bit leading (assuming that nobody is honest) but - again, maybe that’s not what you are saying?”

“[I don’t have tinder]... I have social media, but it’s less personal than dating sites.”

When the issue of disagreement with the task was raised in a post-interview, the participant explained that they didn’t think that the blanket statement was right, and it was put into the probe as fact, when in fact it was the researcher’s opinion and chose not to take part. It was discussed during the interviews that a way to counteract this bias would be to find an area that all participants agree with, or make it clear that it’s an opinion based task and to entertain an alternative concept than their own.

By asking users to create their personas, it seemed to allow for perceived sensitive issues to be addressed in a comedic way. The themes of kink-shaming, never finding a partner and promiscuous sex were addressed in a humorous tone, although when discussed with the participants in the post-interview, none thought that the idea of being brutally honest was the best course of action regarding dating profiles - though some of the participants raised it (although none had personal experience) the concept of catfishing: entirely falsifying a profile and taking on anothers appaearence was defined as a significant negative area within online dating.

Potential design areas - Reverse image searching for suspected profiles built into dating sites - Using hidden ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ to match people on their vulnerabilities - without revealing what they have actually ‘matched’ on (alternative to attraction dating)

Task Two - ‘Design a ‘truthful’ porn’ (Figure 18) This exercise is similar to 3.3.1 in its format; however, it calls for the user to design an honest version of pornography. This task is again challenging the versions of what is ‘normal’ in adult entertainment, by deconstructing (with the possibility to use humour). This task aims to allow the participant a chance to 31

dismantle and challenge standardised pornography by “​unravelling the way in which binaries render the other side the equation invisible and natural” (​ Saukko, 2003, pg. 135-136), by allowing the participant to visualise a version of a typical sexual encounter within their own experiences. In a research project run by

Dawson et al. a model for ‘porn literacy’ showed promise of “​improving critical thinking skills regarding the following sexual health topics: body image comparisons and dissatisfaction; sexual and gender-based violence; fetishising of gay and transgender communities; and setting unrealistic standards for sex” (Dawson et al. 2019, pg 1).

The secondary task again showed a trend to use a blend of simple deconstruction and humour. Some participants who took part in this activity choose to mainly draw scenes that depicted visions that they deemed as every day & commonplace, with scenes showing accurate descriptions of sexual situations such as ‘faking it’ and running to the shop to get condoms, and titled the videos appropriately - ‘girl thinks about the next guy she wants. Other participants choose to display the real-life visions in a more humour lead way, e.g. the consequences of kinks - ‘urine play’, erectile dysfunction, and the constant use of dating apps.

Figure 18. Completed examples (Task two) 32

When discussed with participants, there was a general understanding that there was an idealised version of what sex could be; but the majority did not deem this particularly harmful as they were aware that porn in itself was not trying to sell the truth.

Potential issues that were raised by a few participants was the lack of knowledge about pornography;

“Haven’t watched a lot of porn, so mine was quite ‘Youtubey’ so found it quite difficult” with another participant not agreeing with the task, and thought that it was a biased viewpoint of porn;

“I think it’s an error to see porn as existing to be informative or educational”

“Also found some of the Q’s a bit opinion based/non-neutral, which could affect the responses given by participants. Esp stuff around porn…”

The participants all seemed to be reasonably aware that pornography as a medium was not meant as education - that said, the grouping was all at differing levels of sexual experience and could tell the difference between real-life and pornography and wouldn’t let it imform their personal practice. When discussed the implementations that it could have on younger people who no have almost unlimited access to the internet and pornography, the conversation switched to how the limitation of the internet

could create ​“healthier or unhealthier situations”,​ which in the best case could inform the youth about their own bodies, masturbation, and unashamed pleasure, but at worse, could normalise violent or demeaning sex acts, un-realistic body standards and misinterpreted sexual (gender) roles.

Potential design areas - Creating informed porn literacy for the youth - especially regarding the role of pornography - Identifying and defining consent in relationships - BDSM agreement app? - Informing about kinks

Task Three - ‘Sexual language’ (Figure 19) This exercise is an experimental version of generative research (Martin et al. 2012), calling for users to sort the sexual words displayed, using a selection of coloured stickers:

1. Green - ​‘​Words that I use when talking about 33

sex or words I like.’

2. Red -​ ​‘Words that I don’t like, or ever use.’ 3. Blue -​ ​‘Words I’m neutral about.’

Figure 19. Completed examples (Task Three)

Task three was universally completed by participants. When considered, they all said that it was the easiest task to complete, as it did not take much thought - which led to it being completed quite early on in the process. A few participants raised that they enjoyed the task as it afforded a platform for them to

actively give time to think about words and connotations on their own - ​“I liked how simple it was, and when I first started I was like, fuck, there is so much to analysis, but then after I found it was really easy - the traffic light system”. W​ hen discussed in a deeper context and inquired if this task helped with vocabulary and thought processes, all those asked could see a mild connection to their ability to work with more of the tasks with less unease, as many ‘taboo’ words had already been stated - however, this wasn’t reported throughout the participants, who were generally sexually mature and could have more potential with participants with a lesser-known degree of sexual terms.

This task would not be carried forward to the second version.

Potential design areas - Informing youth on certain sexual phrases and reducing potential shame - Identification, education and understanding on technical names of sexual organs

34

Task Four - ‘Build a personal and healthy sexual education’ (Figure 20) ‘Build a personal sexual education’ focuses on the participant creating their version of the sexual education that they would have ideally liked to have had. The activity focuses on a ‘timeline’ style of mapping the participant’s life and gives a series of suggested topics that they may want to plan on their timeline but also encourages the user to create their own issues.

“You have to learn a lot about many topics in your life to stop you from being confused. But I guess that sex is very confusing anyway”

Figure 20. Completed examples (Task Four)

Task four was the most popular with participants as a research method, with a majority of participants taking part, and discussing in-depth in the post review and interview. Many of the participants explained that they had not been prompted or given themselves the time before to explore their beliefs on the subject of sex education and when reviewing their own experiences had many things that they would have liked to change, and when raising future children would aim at improving. Alongside the information given in this task, a few of the participants discussed their thoughts on what issues were prominent in the post-interview - using the timeline as a structure to host their thoughts, reflecting on their personal experiences and communicating somewhat vulnerable feelings, with one participant referencing their experience with sex work.

When discussing with participants post-task, the two participants who noted younger education ranges referenced their sexual education and explained that having a more comprehensive knowledge of specific 35

subjects such as abuse and safe sex would have been beneficial if it had been more widely discussed with school and their family.

Potential design areas - Creation and discussion of sexual education at home - Personal adult education about sex - Discussing vulnerabilities in relationships

Task Five - ‘Find three sexual romanticisms in 5 minutes’ (Figure 21) This task used participant lead Reflexive Photography. It is an activity that asks participants to show their own interpretation of societal sexual norms or romanticism they can find in media and discourse within 5 minutes. The task states that they can use a plethora of media types to complete this activity, including photographs, drawings, text, video, audio recording, etc. By allowing the participant the possibility of expressing their feelings in a multitude of ways, Martin et al. describe that this can enable the user to articulate what may have been difficult when using traditional means (2012).

36

Figure 21. Completed examples (Task Five)

Task five wasn’t as successful as other tasks, with a few participants not taking part. When discussed in the interviews, it was due to not fully grasping the idea of the task as it was very open and lacked a detailed explanation. However it was also shown to have good results from the participants who did understand, or took a chance on what was wanted - with a range of objects references through drawing, description and photos such as; dining at a restaurant, a 1960s style advert, two deodorant sticks (male vs female), condoms (use of language) books, films, Netflix and other media [Fig. 25-30]. When discussed in the post-interview stage, and the concept of the task was reaffirmed, four female participants continued to give further suggestions such as:

● Women’s shaving adverts that have no leg hair anyway ● Women’s nudity in film 37

● Sanitary town adverts that use blue or purple liquid to emulate blood

The concept was developed with one of the participants. When pressed to elaborate on her views and after some discussion surrounding other participants’ references, we started a conversation about women’s roles in society and the sexualisation that happens from a young age.

“Me & my partner don’t have much up on the walls, bar some abstract art - couldn’t find anything obvious..”

“Only found one out of the three, didn’t quite understand.”

“enjoyed these exercises but felt like in some cases some more info could have been given - esp with the romantic objects thing, having a brief bit of info around the theory of romanticism would have helped do it better as I wasn’t sure what you meant.”

Potential design areas - Challenging societal norms - Gender Bias - Feminist HCI - Gendering Software

Task Six - ‘Sweet Nothings’ (Figure 22) Sweet nothings revolve around a card-based miniature board activity. A set of 120 cards that have differing prompters for the users to either discuss together or disclose their personal experiences with the topic. Each topic discussed will allow the user to move one square closer to the end. This task draws inspiration from both current card activities/games on the market but also is in line with Burkey and

Young’s statements that in that card games offer the possibility to​ “identify complex situations in future settings, as well as a safe environment in which to explore, make mistakes, and discuss the broader

ramifications”​ (Burkey, at al 2017, pg. 2). The cards went through several iterations to find a balance of subjects that held a range of different areas and sensitivities, ending with a final selection process.

The two participants who recorded their audio took differing approaches to the game, one doing the task solo, and one taking part with her partner. Both groups took 20-30 minutes to play the game, which gathered a highly personal set of data ranging from sexual excitements, male sex toys, porn, female body hair, fears and thoughts behind sexual psychology. The data collected was extensive, but below is a blanket selection regarding the secondary research question: 38

“I didn’t really watch porn, so I don’t feel that it affected my thoughts towards sex.”

“Vulnerability means, my first thought, is being able to cry in front of someone… I feel like crying is my most vulnerable form.”

“No, I never paired sex and love; maybe I did once at the beginning of my teenage sexual years, but no.”

“I don’t know a lot about it, but, I’m in full support of men’s use of sex toys, and there shouldn’t be any stigma towards those who want to.”

“I used to be worried about that I would never have anyone think I’m sexy or desirable or anything - sexual or emotional intimacy.”

39

Figure 22. Task Five ‘​in the wild’

Another exciting concept is that the majority of who took part determined that if using again they would be more open to sharing their opinions with either someone that they knew intimately, or a stranger - this could bring about another side of investigation to the task, this was described as a ‘U graph’ by one participant who drew a visual version when requested by the researcher [Fig. 37], with another user

describing as:​ “I think it would be good to do with someone that I don’t know as well - to compare and to find maybe different answers”.

Task six had the best feedback within the cultural probe. Many of the participants noted feelings of openness as the task continued, with one participant describing that they wanted to keep the cards and continue using it as it helped him in healthy discussions with his partner. Furthermore, a participant in a polygamous relationship who played with a friend who was in a monogamous relationship (of ten years)

stated that it held ​‘very interesting’​ results and raised concepts that either side might not have considered before, such as the split opinion of divergence between sex and love.

Although not exclusively, both participants also held contrasting opinions but held a respectful and vulnerable debate allowing one another to entertain the viewpoint of the other. The ability to entertain another’s sentiment while not taking it as their own was apparent especially in this

“Really interesting! My partner and I had completely different relationship types, so we had very different opinions (monogamous vs open)”

40

“Most interesting card “Go back and give yourself advice.”

Another participant wanted to play the game again with somebody whom she did not know, or another member of the focus group. The reasoning behind this was that she felt that every time they played the game, with different people, her answers would slightly change, which would lead to future self-exploration, which would allow for a re-analysis of the participants own opinion - and a potential view of the reasoning behind people changing their thoughts. She participant backed this up by discussing a way that she has found this: ​“By hearing your partner’s opinion, it gave the chance to re-think your own opinion.”

This task is the closest to therapeutic methods that were encountered, with many participants noting the emotional positives they experienced when they played the game - this can be parallelled with McLeod’s

discussion about therapy as a “​site for telling stories in a certain way ​ and as ​emotional processing” (McLeod, 1997, pg. 123, 81) - this happened to combine perfectly with using the card activity as a starting methodology, which again draws a reliable comparison to the results of Burkey et al. as well as a safe environment in which to explore, make mistakes, and discuss the broader ramifications’ (2017).

“I found it really good & prompted me to think about a lot of things that I haven’t in a long time.”

“Collected my thoughts, which is always good because it’s good to explore your opinion on how you feel about different things.”

A particularly exciting concept that was noted by two participants (working together) was the self-reflection of whom they would feel comfortable discussing with, referencing a U shaped chart of the self-perceived openness and correlation of how well they knew the partner (Figure 23).

41

Figure 23. Task Five ‘​U-shaped graph’

Potential design areas - Exploring the emotional space between partners and working with enabling more communication - Erotic communication within partners - Human to human communication

Task Seven - ‘5 Minute Debate’ (Figure 24) This task calls upon debate as an educational method, a task which has been adopted for this research. This activity calls for the user to debate for or against a series of questions with a partner - supporting both current thinking and reflection. Hoover describes that debate provides a​ very practical approach to the study of controversial issues (​ Hoover, 1965, pg. 234) which seems to be an invaluable tool for research methods for sensitive subjects. This activity goes against the traditional form of debate as it leaves the for/against down to chance by requiring the participants to flip a coin to determine what side of the argument that they sit on. The debate is an educational technique that Avdeyeva et al. describes as encouraged students to reevaluate their positions and change their attitudes toward the discussed issues (2008, pg. 626). It is not the winning of the debate that is of interest in this activity, instead it is the documentation of reviews from participants about their experiences from considering and arguing on behalf of, an idea that isn’t necessarily their own and comments on how the discussion evolved.

This task did show good potential to gather data, but there was a general feeling of a lack of subjects the participants felt particularly opinionated with, and also general misunderstanding regarding what the task was about, which affected the results that may have been collected. This mainly involved several 42

participants who thought that they should argue for or against the idea with their own beliefs, which caused some friction when debating an issue that had little or no backing against and they didn’t want to continue as they disagreed with the side of the debate. The idea of the game was to entertain an idea that was not their own, which could have led towards a more open level for discussion and a differing way of considering points that they had to imagine themselves believing. This could be adjusted in the future by having either a discussion before the task began or a video that breaks down what is expected from the task in detail.

Figure 24. Completed user photo (Task Seven)

One participant understood this technique and had an open debate that both enjoyed, even though they generally had the same thought processes.

“Hard to put yourself into the shoes of someone who would definitely say yes, or no”

“Interesting game to play with others, as a sort of icebreaker for a sexual health workshop or sex ed.”

“It was a nice game, played solo so not as dynamic and could have had further conversations”

“Interesting to try to get into the head of someone that has a different opinion than you. Always good to rather than be insular in your own thoughts”

Potential design areas 43

- Communication techniques between those with different opinions - Sexual Education in youths

Task Eight - ‘A gender difference?’ (Figure 25) ‘A gender difference?’ takes inspiration from a muted version of debate - again as defined by Hoover as provid[ing] a very practical approach to the study of controversial issues (​ 1965, pg. 234). However this task differs from both the previous technique and debate in general as it doesn’t force the participants to contest for their view, instead ideally allowing for a ‘safe space’ to note their opinions down, and potentially prompting an undefined flow of ‘free-speak’ between the participants in the game, offering potential insight into both users attitudes and potential vulnerabilities.

Task eight showed that there is potential for further research concerning the difference in how gender affected the participants’ opinions, and what this means to the participants. This was apparent in answers from the ‘consent’ question, where two of the female participants (one based in the UK, one based in New Zealand) held views that consent should be as early as possible, and the males giving exact ages [Fig. 39, 40] (which were much older than the females’ views of as early as possible).

Figure 25. Completed (Task Eight)

When the method was discussed in the post-interview, these participants directly noted that they hadn’t thought previously about the difference between genders in sex education at school and what impact that it could have on a healthy relationship with sex. This topic was further discussed within task six, where the

female participant wanted to discuss in more depth, but the male partner didn’t want to - ​I think there were some issues that I wanted to discuss deeper than my partner, because they had a feminist twist, or 44

something like that. ​However, these findings were not universal, but are curious to consider, with further research with larger groups, adapting the task to find potential data pockets, in discrepancies between different social backgrounds; ages; religions; incomes; races; upbringings; etc.

This task has similarly shown promise to start an open conversation between the participants and their partners, communicating their similarities and differences in an open and respectful conversation. Two of the responses from the participants’ partners were very limited. When discussed with the interview, they explained that they wanted to do it, but were somewhat limited with the number of people available to interact with, due to quarantines. In each case, their partner said they would help, but did not have much motivation to elaborate on their thoughts. When discussed, this was another reason listed for interest towards having a paired inner grouping.

Potential design areas - Sex education review (how genders are taught differently) - Gender differences in tech

Task Nine - ‘Advertise actual norms’ (Figure 26) Task nine, as the final data gathering task was similar in tasks one and two by indirectly gathering data through the open interview process at the end. The participants discussed their drawings, pulling attention to certain stigmatised issues and their responses to it. The issues covered ranged from menstruation/products, open sexual conversations, sexual activity, ‘faking it’ and ‘messy sex’. Conversations were started in the post-interview to discuss the reasoning why they drew what they did - similar to the initial two tasks there was the use of humour and extremities to debase the societal norms, which then lead the users to discuss their thoughts regarding the issues in detail, with some participants labelling their drawings with their specific deconstructions.

When reviewing the research gained from these methodologies it was clear that some had more potential for development than others (within the gathering of research within sex themes as a sensitive topic), and when reviewing the tasks with the participants, they supplied helpful suggestions in how to improve both singular methods and research tools as a whole. The following is a review of the experimental methodology with points raised and discussed with the participants regarding the tasks themselves. This is matched with internal design and research discussion of processes, strengths, weaknesses and potential updates that could be applied to further iterations of the techniques.

45

Figure 26. Completed (Task Nine)

Task Ten - ‘Your thoughts’ The ‘your thoughts’ task is an open-ended survey, which acts as a prompt for the participants to breakdown the areas of the study that they enjoyed, which could be improved, etc. This is to allow for a self-reflection on the cultural probe, leaving their thoughts anonymously. This task can also be viewed as a preparation for the semi-structured interview

When reviewing the research gained from these methodologies it was clear that some had more potential for development than others (within the gathering of research within sex themes as a sensitive topic), and when reviewing the tasks with the participants, they supplied helpful suggestions in how to improve both singular methods and research techniques as a whole. The following is a review of the experimental methodology with points raised and discussed with the participants regarding the tasks themselves. This is matched with internal design and research discussion of processes, strengths, weaknesses and potential updates that could be applied to further iterations of the tools.

46

Key Results

Overall there was positive feedback from the focus group regarding the overall format of the cultural probe covering both version types. There were no ill effects reported from any of the participants, with many considering that they found the tasks to have emotionally healthy consequences for themselves and their partners even when discussing topics that had never been discussed previously. That said, it was clear that the physical copies of the cultural probe had the highest completion rate, with the

screen-based versions having a much lower completion rate. One participant mentioned that it was ​“very nice to have something tangible”​, but then followed up by stating there was not enough room for everything they wanted to work through. It was also the widespread agreement that a style of a ‘safe space’ was needed to induce data of a more sensitive and personal means. However, this needs to be discussed more, as mentioned previously, a large percentage of the participants were under quarantine and completed the booklet in their home, with the cohabiting partner, which was already a predetermined ‘safe space’.

“Overall I think it’s a very cool study and I love that you branched out and did your research gathering in such a different and unusual way, it’s very refreshing”

“Really enjoyed doing all the different tasks & made me think about my own ideas around sex & how they should be talked about or when they should be talked about” “Found it really interesting in terms of being a selfish way, learning about myself, and trying to unpick my beliefs that I have”

“A lot of these things I don’t think about on a day to day basis, I haven’t reflected on the questions that we answered before.”

“Being prompted allowed the time and space needed to think about topics, which is very healthy.”

“Also found some of the Q’s a bit opinion based/ non-neutral, which could affect the responses given by participants. Esp stuff around porn..., I just guess I’d be a bit concerned that you might be putting your own biases on things which could skew the results.”

The differing tools of gathering data within the sexual realm that were implemented had various degrees of success within the focus group. The tasks (1,2,9) that took the use of creativity, and humour resulted in the most comprehensive data in more generous amounts; however, this was only found when combined with a semi-structured interview after completion of the probe, with the designer taking a stance of active 47

listening and coaxing certain thoughts out of the participants. This point can be supported by the established positives discussed, that humour in research seems to afford, especially when combined with an active listening approach by the researcher, allowing for the participant assistive self analyse of their playful deconstructions of issues - leading to a further depth of data.

Task six - ‘Sweet nothings’ also raised the idea of the importance of constructing a ‘safe-space’ which generally prompted the users to tell stories/share personal views. Further research will need to confirm the fact, but it seems that the correlations in the research groupings constructed safe space were generally in a bedroom, with a cohabiting partner. An interesting approach is the concept of a ‘third party’ - in this case, the card game itself that defined the questions, as a neutral member of the game. When discussed, certain participants referenced this effect.

Discussion

A growing exploration within complex human emotions and vulnerable people/situations within HCI has noted the difficulty of researching sensitive subjects, and there has been calls for more research tools to identify design spaces and to drive further exploration and research within this area (Bardzell et al. 2011; Brewer et al. 2006).

The project put forward the concept of using an adapted version of Gaver’s cultural probe, referencing and taking inspiration from social sciences and psychotherapy techniques to allow for determining and examining sensitive design areas that may not have been initially visible or accessible through Gaver’s traditional version of a cultural probe.

By collecting data from the participants in various creative and emotive ways and granting situations for humour to be used the initial set of data held interesting results, however the main article of interest and the area that surpassed traditional probes was a collaboration with the participants in the study. As researcher and researched took an open minded approach towards the use of the probe, and relationships were built upon, working with a combination of active listening and interest in the contributors views a secondary and more in depth set of data became apparent that the participants hadn’t realised they held.

As was noted at the beginning of the thesis, this paper was not aimed at finding exact design spaces to be considered for sensitive-HCI, but instead favoured the actual method of research to inform both present and future HCI. This was of particular importance when when considering Gaver’s view on 48

uneducated technology design ​“unless we start to respect the full range of values that make us human, the technologies we build are likely to be dull and uninteresting at best, and dehumanising at worst“ (Gaver 2001). The next section of the thesis discusses key areas in the project.

Creative Tasks The tasks that asked the users for the artistic expression of their ideas and concepts surrounding sexual themes seems to be a potentially effective technique when followed up with a post-task interview. All those who participated noted enjoyment of the activities and even those who lacked drawing skills had good feedback. The use of humour was widely apparent after the tasks, which allowed for a fluid path to discussions regarding larger, unabridged sensitive topics, in which is evidence that ​use of humour in a designerly way matches the way that medical practitioners use successfully to diminish discomfort,

manage sensitive situations, and enhance communication ​(Johnson, 1990, pg. 4). Johnson also references the use of humour as a mechanism between medical practitioners and patients as ​establishing relationships, relieving anxiety, and releasing negative emotions (​ 1990, pg. 4). This is seemingly vital within the research for sensitive topics, with Hirsch noting that a good relationship between researcher and researched, allowing for more ​meaningful exchanges and richer data (​ 2020, pg. 4).

That said, it was also clear that not all of the users completed this set of creative tasks, as they had little to no experiences with the topics that were central to the tasks (pornography, dating apps), so they either didn’t complete, or the information gathered was from an outsider point of view, which can be viewed as particularly useful when comparing with others in the group. There is evidence that tasks calling on the users to use their creative skills to solve a ‘problem’ or to offer their thoughts is an effective way to allow for a researcher to dissect the creation together with the participant.

“Really liked this one, really fun and interactive”

“Not much of an artist, so it was quite intimidating to draw.”

Therapeutic Effects Although this paper was not intended to offer any direct therapeutic benefit to the subjects, it was reported back by two of the participants (who are cohabiting and in a relationship together) that they gained positive effects from participation - especially from task six. ​“It was good to have these questions and to have a discussion about it, especially with a partner (in a relationship) where we don’t normally speak about these things”.​ This was backed up by the other participant ​“I found it really good to do it with my actual partner and learn more about what he thinks about things as well”.​ When this was discussed further, they both separately concluded that they wanted to continue this exploration of themselves and 49

their partner and that they wished to keep the cards for future use. A generally expressed view within the whole group was of the importance of being afforded ample time for personal reflection, which provided a sound platform for self-analyse and deeper thinking on subjects that had not previously surfaced at a conscious level. This also enriched the responses from individual subjects, delivering clear and obvious benefits in terms of information gathered. Although not therapy ​per se​; as McLeod writes ​as a site for telling stories in a certain way and emotional processing ​(1997, pg. 123, 81), it is positive for data gathering, and as expanded upon by Hirsch - ​[it] strengthen bonds between researchers and participants, and by extension, may lead to more meaningful exchanges and richer data​ (2020, pg. 621).

Active listening/Semi-Structured interview Another potentially robust method that the designer can implement and which this paper looked at is active listening. This can be viewed as mirroring Hirsch’s thoughts about the use of semi-structured

interviews as research techniques: ​that mirror therapeutic experience can provide benefit to researchers and participants alike (​ 2020, pg. 622). When the participants were discussing their thoughts in the post-interview, it quickly became apparent that by focusing on one area that the participant vocalised, and subsequently referring back to it encouragingly when asking questions referring to their thoughts behind certain issues, a more candid and open collection of emotional data was possible than was originally the case without encouragement and reinforcement. This was evidenced in several areas and among various participants when they were prompted to expand on the reasons for certain thoughts and views that were expressed or return to brief statements made in passing.

Biases One issue that was raised by two of the participants in the post-interview was perceived bias in tasks one and two. This was unintentional. Although arguable, it highlighted the importance of creating a probe that either is aware and intentionally includes biases with the intention of drawing out specific responses or one which is subjected to a comprehensive review process with a design team drawn from a range of relevant specialities with the intention of eliminating (as far as is possible) the risk of perceived bias. When preparing a future cultural probe and agreeing what is to be discussed and the tools to be employed, the issue of partiality towards issues could be addressed either by allowing for a more diverse team drawn from a range of backgrounds or by capitalising on the focus groups own thoughts, using participatory design processes (to be discussed later).

Lack of completion In the course of reviewing outcomes, it was identified that several of the tasks had either been misunderstood or did not give the participants sufficient confidence to address them as openly as they 50

might. Although it was set out and subsequently reiterated in several emails that if the project instructions or parameters gave rise to any questions or concerns, the subject could contact the researcher, this was not taken up. There was no contact from the group in response to this offer.

When this was brought up in the post-project interview with the participants, none of them offered any thoughts on why they had not taken up the offer of emailing or otherwise communicating any queries or reservations. However, when the possibility of a more structured introductory booklet or a reference video was suggested, the majority of participants said that it would have helped their understanding and would have been welcome. As such, it would have reduced the potential need to contact the researcher directly and therefore, the possibility of looking foolish in advance of beginning formal project participation.

Additionally, two participants expressed slight guilt/regret at not having finished all of the tasks, although it was stated multiple times that, though desirable, was not an absolute requirement. Further exploration of the best ways to communicate regarding the tasks, expectations and in order to avoid participants feeling guilt at not having completed all of the possible tasks is considered as necessary in future projects. Potential methods could include video, AR/VR, web applications and audio explanations.

Although not cited by the participants, it is also vital to mention the possible effects of general physical and mental wellbeing on participation and information gathering. Concerns regarding potential breaches of cognitive allowance the participants might have experienced and the impact of that on the probe as a result of the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified, but it was not possible to assess these within the scope of this work).

Humour/Deconstruction The use of humour and deconstruction was apparent through many of the tasks. This offers an intriguing insight into how well the participants opened up to sensitive, taboo or less discussed topics; how, when humorous text and drawn depictions of multiple issues were employed, this prompted open discussions of what is deemed as the norm by examining and referencing complete opposites. This form of deconstruction that works by ​criticising a particular norm, while suggesting another, equally problematic one ​(Saukko, 2003, pg. 147) mainly showed itself in task one, two and nine: but with each example exposed potential additional directions for further discussion.

Accessibility Although not raised by any of the participants, it is crucial to note that there may be future participants that have visual impairments, deafness, other physical/intellectual disability, or have limited literacy/ability to follow written guidance. Each of the documented techniques would have to be reaffirmed, and different 51

versions of the cultural probe made (braille, audio-based) or the tasks broken down into more casual versions of themselves.

Challenge of diversity It is of note and was clear from the outset that this project had only limited diversity within the focus group. Limitations on time, funding and collaboration opportunities meant it was not possible to gather and process significantly greater volumes of data or to communicate with a much larger subject group. This is most apparent from the fact that the project subjects all identified as cis-gendered, 88.8% female, all were in relationships, 88.9% aged between 26-30, all came from socially liberal backgrounds, and all were from first world western countries. That said, it was the group that was available for study, and whose members gave their willing participation. The researcher feels immensely privileged to have received their trust and support and continuous willingness to partake in the project in the course of a global pandemic.

One participant raised the question about what kind of person would take part in these types of studies: ​“I think that if you’re doing something like this you have to be quite open in yourself”. ​ That said, another participant contradicted that notion indirectly: ​“It was good to have these questions and to have a discussion about it, especially with a partner [another participant] who doesn’t speak about these things”. Both comments raise questions for future studies regarding levels of openness when addressing issues of a sexual nature and comparing differences in people’s views. Interestingly, one subject that touched on this was task eight (gender difference) as discussed previously, which implied that males are less likely to be open when responses from males and females in the study are significantly contrasted (1/9).

The tasks put forward as working or holding the potential to offer additional insight within sensitive topics can only claim to work with people within the small diversity of the focus group. However, it is theorised that the large majority of the tasks will work with a more different grouping, but that will need to be assessed and further reviewed as part of any future study within this area.

Areas that could hold a distinct challenge, but perhaps the most rewarding could be those where religion strongly influence cultural behaviours and views on morality, countries (laws/society) or cultures that hold particular discrimination or bias towards sex, in particular homosexuality and non-cis relationships (or other sensitive topics) who may find the communication required intimidating and potentially expose them to investigation and prosecution by the authorities of their country. Each would have to be reviewed in its context and collaboration between experts, participants, and researchers would lead the adaption of the cultural probe.

Rewards of relationships 52

It can be argued that through the choice of research tools, the researcher and the researched can form a positive symbiotic relationship - by taking part, allowing time for and sharing their beliefs, it allows for a version of emotional processing that has been described as rewarding for the participant while gathering comprehensive, and sensitive data then would be using standardised research and interview techniques. The fact can be compared to Hirsch’s (2020) paper that argues for qualitative semi-structured interview techniques that promise to create therapeutic effects for the participants. Although none of the participants in this workshop used specific wording, a repeating theme of ‘healthy’ and ‘self-analysis’ was discussed, which holds promise to further research in using symbiotic relationships to gather data.

Future developments

In the final stage, a discussion of thoughts regarding how to improve the experience with the focus group in future iterations. Six participants discussed their willingness to take part in the design or creation of another cultural probe. By opening up a co-design platform with the participants it potentially holds a grounding for gathering data before the project starts, allows for a more founded understanding for all the tasks - as they will be reviewed by non-designers/researchers and potentially allows for lending their personal opinions, histories and thoughts that may not have been originally visible for the research or design teams. This idea, alongside the discussion regarding creativity in the results chapter, drives the concept of researching sensitive issues in a participatory design aspect. By leading the participants to use their creative skills to find problems that the design team were previously blind to, or to offer their thoughts is a decent way to allow for a mutual relationship to elegantly dissect the creation together with the participant, potentially even more when combined with reciprocal active listening.

The participants were asked about their thoughts regarding cooperating with others in the focus group. This idea was generally popular, but the problem of timezones, communication platforms and unease of engaging with each other via video was raised. This should be researched in more depth in future iterations of the probe, as the blending of many thoughts can spark deeper insights.

Conclusion

The aim of the project was to consider practical ways that adapted cultural probes can be used to inform sensitive-HCI research and design spaces. Future iterations of the adapted probe will be required to concrete the research tools, and to be tested over a larger range of participants, and subjects matters - however, adapted cultural probes do seem to hold strong potential in identifying and realising both present and future sensitive design spaces. The use of incorporating preexisting social science tools showed promise to delve deeper in participants' psyche has shown itself to be of use, however the 53

researcher can imagine these effects becoming much more robust and hold greater potential to identify issues, if collaborating with seasoned practitioners of psychotherapy, sociology and sexology (subject respective). These combined skill sets could prove to have complementary and mutually beneficial effects to one another, however; this will have to be confirmed in future research.

The idea of researching, identifying and thus designing for sensitive subjects are growing ever more significant for both present and future technologies, and it is possible that adapted cultural probes may be at the forefront of this challenge.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Maliheh Ghajargar for her consistent support and guidance during the running of this project. Furthermore, I would like to thank my classmates for their open discussion and engagement with the concepts behind this project. I would also like to acknowledge each of my participants for their willingness, participation, openness and engagement in the study - without whom this study would not have been possible.

54

Bibliography

Almeida, T, Comber, R, Olivier, P, & Balaam, M. (2014). Intimate care. Proceedings of the 2014 Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS Companion ’14, 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598784.2602768

Almeida, T, Comber, R, Wood, G, Saraf, D, & Balaam, M. (2016). On Looking at the Vagina through Labella. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1810–1821. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858119

Almeida, T, Wood, G, Comber, R, & Balaam, M. (2016). Interactivity. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’16, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2890261

Association for Computing Machinery. (n.d.). ACM Digital Library . Retrieved 3 April 2020, from https://dl.acm.org/

Bardzell, J, & Bardzell, S. (2007). Docile Avatars: Aesthetics, Experience, and Sexual Interaction in Second Life . Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on HCI 2007: HCI...but Not as We Know It, 1, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/1531294.1531296

Bardzell, J, & Bardzell, S. (2011). Pleasure is your birthright. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’11, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978979

Bardzell, Jeffrey, Bardzell, S, & Kannabiran, G. (2011). How HCI talks about sexuality. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979043

Bardzell, S, & Bardzell, J. (2006). Sex-Interface-Aesthetics: The Docile Avatars and Embodied Pixels of Second Life BDSM. World Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.ics.uci.edu/~johannab/sexual.interactions.2006/papers/ShaowenBardzell&JeffreyBardzell-Se xualInteractions2006.pdf

Barnes, V., & Preez, V. (2015). Mapping Empathy and Ethics in the Design Process. Ethics and Accountability in Design: Do They Matter? Proceedings of the International Conference of Design 55

Education Forum South Africa (DEFSA). 7th International DEFSA Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Barry, R. A, & Khalifian, C. E. (2020). The relation between mindfulness and perceived partner responsiveness during couples’ vulnerability discussions. Journal of Family Psychology, 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000666

Bellotti, V, & SIGCHI (Group : U.S.) (Eds.). (2003). CHI 2003: New horizons: conference proceedings, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery.

Berkovich, M. (2009). Perspective probe. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA 09. doi:10.1145/1520340.1520422

Bertelsen, O. W, & Petersen, M. G. (2007). Erotic Life as a New Frontier in HCI. Proceedings of the 21st BCS HCI Group Conference, 2, 7–10. https://doi.org/10.5555/1531407.1531410

Boas, S. (2019). No in disguise. ACM SIGGRAPH 2019 Art Gallery, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306211.3320144

Boehner, K, Vertesi, J, Sengers, P, & Dourish, P. (2007). How HCI interprets the probes. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 07. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240789

Boucher, A, Brown, D, Ovalle, L, Sheen, A, Vanis, M, Odom, W, … Gaver, W. (2018). TaskCam. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173645

Brannen, J. (1993). Research Notes: The Effects of Research on Participants: Findings from a Study of Mothers and Employment. The Sociological Review, 41(2), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1993.tb00068.x

Brewer, J, Kaye, J. ‘Jofish’, Williams, A, & Wyche, S. (2006). Sexual interactions. CHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’06, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125765

56

Buchanan, R. D, & Haslam, N. (2019). Psychotherapy. The Cambridge Handbook of the Intellectual History of Psychology, 468–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108290876.019

Burkey, D, & Young, M. (2018). Work-in-Progress: A ‘Cards Against Humanity’-style Card Game for Increasing Engineering Students’ Awareness of Ethical Issues in the Profession. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 1. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--29190

Carrasco, M, & Kerne, A. (2018). Queer Visibility. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173824

Clarkson, J, Coleman, R, Keates, S, and Lebbon, C. (eds) (2003) Inclusive design: Design for the whole population. London: Springer-Verlag.

Clulow, C. (2019). Love, sex and psychotherapy in a post-romantic age: A commentary. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 21(3–4), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642537.2019.1654668

Condomines, B, & Hennequin, E. (2014). Studying sensitive issues: the contributions of a mixed

approach. RIMHE : Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme(s) & Entreprise, 14(5), 3. https://doi.org/10.3917/rimhe.014.0003

Crabtree, A, Hemmings, T, Rodden, T, Cheverst, K, Clarke, K, & Hughes, J. (2003.). Designing with Care: Adapting Cultural Probes to Inform Design in Sensitive Settings. 10.

Davis, H, & Waycott, J. (2015). Ethical Encounters. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction on - OzCHI ’15, 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/2838739.2838834

Dawson, K, Cooper, C, & Moore, J. (2018). ‘They giggle and I crush over them’: porn as pedagogy at Tate Modern. Porn Studies, 5(1), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2017.1388190

Dawson, K, Tafro, A, & Štulhofer, A. (2019). Adolescent sexual aggressiveness and pornography use: A longitudinal assessment. Aggressive Behavior, 45(6), 587–597. ​https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21854

De Botton, A. (2019). The School of Life: An emotional education. Hamish Hamilton, an imprint of Penguin Books. 57

DeVito, M. A, Walker, A, Lustig, C, Ko, A. J, Spiel, K, Ahmed, A. A, … Gray, M. L. (2020). Queer in HCI: Supporting LGBTQIA+ Researchers and Research Across Domains. CHI’20 Extended Abstracts, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381058

Eaglin, A, & Bardzell, S. (2011). Sex toys and designing for sexual wellness. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’11, 1837–1842. https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979879

Farberow, N. L, Henry, W. E, & Allport, G. W. (2012). Taboo Topics. Whitefish, MT: Literary Licensing, LLC.

Fassaert, T, van Dulmen, S, Schellevis, F, & Bensing, J. (2007). Active listening in medical consultations: Development of the Active Listening Observation Scale (ALOS-global). Patient Education and Counseling, 68(3), 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.06.011

Fennel, G, Phillipson, C. and Evers, H. (1989) The Sociology of Old Age, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Frank, J. D, PhD, & Frank, J. B. (1993). Psychotherapy in America today. In Persuasion and Healing: A Comparative Study of Psychotherapy (3rd ed, pp. 16–17). Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gaver, B, Dunne, T, & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235

Gaver, W. (2001) “Designing for ludic aspects of everyday life”, ERCIM News, No.47. www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw47/gaver.html

Gaver, W. (2001) “Designing for ludic aspects of everyday life”, ERCIM News, No.47.www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw47/gaver.html

Gaver, W. W, Boucher, A, Pennington, S, & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions, 11(5), 53. doi:10.1145/1015530.1015555

58

Gaver, W. W, Boucher, A, Pennington, S, & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions, 11(5), 53–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1015530.1015555

Gelles, R. J. (1978). Methods for studying sensitive family topics. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48(3), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1978.tb01331.x

George, S. (2019). From sex and therapy bots to virtual assistants and tutors. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces - CUI ’19, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342807

Gibbs, M, Howard, S, Kjeldskov, J, Vetere, F, & Satchell, C. (2006). ’Was it Good for you Darling?’–Intimacy, Sex and Critical Technical Practice. CHI 2006, 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.ics.uci.edu/~johannab/sexual.interactions.2006/papers/MartinGibbsEtAl-SexualInteractions20 06.pdf

Guillemin, M, & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360

Halpern, M. K, Erickson, I, Forlano, L, & Gay, G. K. (2013). Designing collaboration. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’13, 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441900

Hanington, B, & Martin, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.

Helms, K. (2019). Do You Have to Pee? Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322290

Herron, D., Andalibi, N., Haimson, O., Moncur, W., & Hoven, E. V. (2016). HCI and Sensitive Life Experiences. Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - NordiCHI 16. DOI:10.1145/2971485.2987673

Hirsch, T. (2020). Practicing Without a License: Design Research as Psychotherapy. ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2020), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376750

59

Hoover, K. H. (1965). The Debate: Valid Teaching Method? The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 40(4), 232–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1965.11476952 Interaction Research Studio. (2020). Probetools. Retrieved 13 May 2020, from https://probetools.net

Johnson, H. A. (1990). HUMOR AS AN INNOVATIVE METHOD FOR TEACHING SENSITIVE TOPICS. Educational Gerontology, 16(6), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/0380127900160605

Kahn, J. P, & Mastroianni, A. C. (2001). Moving From Compliance to Conscience. Archives of Internal Medicine, 161(7), 925. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.7.925

Kaye, J. ‘Jofish’, & Goulding, L. (2004). Intimate objects. Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques - DIS ’04, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013115.1013175

Koefoed Hansen, L, & Kozel, S. (2007). Embodied imagination: a hybrid method of designing for intimacy. Digital Creativity, 18(4), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626260701743200

Lee, R. M, & Renzetti, C. M. (1990). The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(5), 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764290033005002

Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing Research on Sensitive Topics (1st ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Liamputtong, P. (2011). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London: SAGE.

Liamputtong, P. (2011). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London: SAGE.

MacAndrew, R, & Martinez, R. (2001). Taboos and Issues (LTP Instant Lessons) (1st ed.). Melbourne, Austrailia: Heinle ELT.

McAdams, D. P, & Bryant, F. B. (1987). Intimacy Motivation and Subjective Mental Health in a Nationwide Sample. Journal of Personality, 55(3), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00444.x

60

McLeod, J. (1998). Narrative and Psychotherapy (1st ed.). New York, New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mueller, F. ‘Floyd’, Vetere, F, Gibbs, M. R, Kjeldskov, J, Pedell, S, & Howard, S. (2005). Hug over a distance. CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’05, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1056994

Nathan, L. P, Thieme, A, Tatar, D, & Branham, S. (2016). Disruptions, Dilemmas and Paradoxes: Ethical Matter(s) in Design Research. Interacting with Computers, 29(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iww034

Noessel, C. (2006). Master John: Peripheral safety and feedback system for practitioners of BDSM. CHI 2006, 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248602960_Master_John_Peripheral_safety_and_feedback_sy stem_for_practitioners_of_BDSM

ProQuest | Databases, EBooks and Technology for Research. (n.d.). Retrieved 14 April 2020, from https://www.proquest.com/ Rubin, S. (2011). Tackling Taboo Topics: Case Studies in Group Work. Social Work With Groups, 34(3–4), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2011.558824

Saeed, M, & Griffin, G. (2019). Researching a sensitive topic in an unstable environment. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-02-2019-0013

Saukko, P. A. (2003). Doing Research in Cultural Studies: An Introduction to Classical and New Methodological Approaches (Introducing Qualitative Methods series) (First ed.). New York, NY: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Sieber, J. E, & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research. American Psychologist, 43(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.43.1.49

Skinner, J. (1998). Research as a counselling activity?: a discussion of some uses of counselling within the context of research on sensitive issues. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 26(4), 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069889800760451

Spiel, K, Keyes, O, Walker, A. M, DeVito, M. A, Birnholtz, J, Brulé, E, … Kannabiran, G. (2019). Queer(ing) HCI. Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3311750 61

Su, N. M, Lazar, A, Bardzell, J, & Bardzell, S. (2019). Of Dolls and Men. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301422

Su, N. M., Lazar, A., Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2019). Of Dolls and Men. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26(3), 1-35. DOI:10.1145/3301422

Thieme, A., Vines, J., Wallace, J., Clarke, R. E., Slovák, P., Mccarthy, J., Parker, A. G. (2014). Enabling empathy in health and care. Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA 14. DOI:10.1145/2559206.2559237

Umiker-Sebeok, D. J. (1987). Marketing and semiotics. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

Vines, J., Mcnaney, R., Lindsay, S., Wallace, J., & Mccarthy, J. (2014). Special topic: Designing for and with vulnerable people. Interactions, 21(1), 44-46. DOI:10.1145/2543490

Waycott, J., Wadley, G., Schutt, S., Stabolidis, A., & Lederman, R. (2015). The Challenge of Technology Research in Sensitive Settings. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction on - OzCHI 15. DOI:10.1145/2838739.2838773

Wiederman, M. W. (2001). Understanding Sexuality Research (Vol. 1). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Wood, M, Garbett, A, Morrissey, K, Hopkins, P, & Balaam, M. (2018). ‘Protection on that Erection?’ Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18, 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174238

Wyche, S. (2019). Using Cultural Probes In New Contexts. Conference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359454

62