Orand Washington 0250E 16825
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BRIDGING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE: A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL MAPPING OF DESIGN SPACE USING SOLO TRAVEL DOMAIN MANIA ORAND A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 2017 READING COMMITTEE: Jennifer A. Turns, Chair Katie Davis Bob M. Mason David W. McDonald PROGRAM AUTHORIZED TO OFFER DEGREE: HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN AND ENGINEERING ©Copyright 2017 Mania Orand ii Abstract Bridging Research and Practice: A Theoretical and Empirical Mapping of Design Space using Solo Travel Domain Mania Orand Doctor of Philosophy Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Jennifer A. Turns Human Centered Design and Engineering University of Washington, Seattle Although researchers have developed a myriad of theories, methods, and tools for interactive design, there remains a large divide between scholarly research and design practice. This divide stems from differences in academics’ and design practitioners’ training, communication, and even the venues in which they choose to present their work. This dissertation features an empirical investigation to help bridge this divide. I explore new ways of incorporating research and theory into interactive design, through three projects in the context of solo travel. The projects are based on over 65 hours of in-depth interviews with 21 solo travelers, and are complemented by over 100 hours of observation and participation in solo travel-related events and meet-ups. I used the findings to develop a novel, two-dimensional analytical design process, embodied in a matrix. The matrix dynamically maps theory with qualitative research and creates a design space articulation that provides designers with a way to identify new design ideas, externalize these developments, and share their work with others. I demonstrate the matrix’s utility by discussing how it helped 16 designers collaborate to develop new interactive technology opportunities in the solo travel domain. Applications for how this matrix may be used with other theoretical and normative domains are discussed. iii Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Section A. Research Questions 3 Section B. Dissertation Structure 4 Chapter 2. Background 7 Section A. Research and theory-driven interaction design 7 Section B. Travel, solo travel, and technology 20 Chapter 3. Methodology & Methods 29 Section A. Data Collection Methodology 29 Section B. Data analysis rigor 39 Section C. Design Projects 42 Chapter 4. Design Project 1: Research-driven design 45 Section A. Solo Travel through sociotechnical perspective 45 Discussion of findings: Solo travel through sociotechnical perspective 55 Section B. Solo travel through activity perspective 57 Discussion of findings: Travel as Activity 64 Connecting research findings to design 65 Design Project 1 Limitations 68 Design Project 1 Discussion 69 Chapter 5. Design Project 2: Theory-driven design 71 Section A. Selection of Identity theories 71 Section B. Solo Travel through identity theories 75 Connecting research findings to design 120 Design Project 2 Limitations 125 Design Project 2 Discussion 125 Development of a new design process 127 Chapter 6. Design Project 3: Human-Centered Design Perspective 131 Section A. Setting up the design project 131 Section B. Connecting the matrix to design 141 Connecting research findings to design 145 Design Project 3 Limitations 151 Design Project 3 Discussion 154 iv Chapter 7 - Conclusion, contributions, and future directions 157 Spotlight on matrix 160 Future Directions - Adapting the Matrix 173 Limitations of the Matrix 178 Other Future Directions 178 Summary of Contributions 179 References 181 Appendices 193 List of Figures Figure 1- An early sketch of a design example called Reflector (Design Project 1) 70 Figure 2- An early sketch of a design example called Guiding Light (Design Project 2) 128 Figure 3- A collage of initial design ideas by emerging designers (Design Project 3) 138 Figure 4- An example of the affinity diagrams created (Design Project 3) 140 Figure 5- The output of the SnapScent camera (Design Project 3) 150 Figure 6- A sketch of SoloStick (Design Project 3) 151 Figure 7- A sketch of ColorAway (Design Project 3) 152 Figure 8- A sketch of Journey (Design Project 3) 153 List of Tables Table 1- The demographics of solo travelers participated in the study 36 Table 2- Summary of participants and interviews 37 Table 3- The demographics of the emerging designers participated in design project 3 136 v Dedicated to my alter ego, who did not need to be present to be there for me, from the depth of my soul. 1 Chapter 1. Introduction “I have become convinced that universities are not devoted to the production and distribution of fundamental knowledge in general. They are institutions committed, for the most part, to a particular epistemology, a view of knowledge that fosters selective inattention to practical competence and professional artistry. [...] It is as though the practitioner says to his academic colleague, “While I do not accept your view of knowledge, I cannot describe my own.” Sometimes, indeed, the practitioners appear to say, “My kind of knowledge is indiscernible,” or even, “I will not attempt to describe it lest I paralyze myself.” Donald Schön - The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action Rapid expansion of the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) field has attracted scholars from a wide range of topics, contexts, and approaches. These diverse perspectives inform how interactive design technology can affect an array of life activities, including education, work, sports, and health care, among many others. At the same time, new developments in interactive technology and its influence on our lives have introduced more wicked situations for interaction designers. These changes highlight the importance of understanding and reflecting on these large, complex design practices, which beg the question, how do we think systematically as interaction designers? While design practitioners rely on an array of methods and tools, academic researchers have developed various theories, methods, and models that can help inform practical application. For example, the applied psychology of HCI seeks to show how human action, motivation, and experience can impact the usability of interactive systems while supporting the development of new interactive technology (Carroll, 1991). However, practitioners scarcely employ these academic contributions because they have difficulty learning and implementing them, and see their practicality as limited (Rogers, 2004). Researchers and design practitioners use different venues to share and discuss their work. While researchers submit papers to academic commons, design practitioners “take a more social approach” and participate in discussions, verbal critiques, or design competitions (Zimmerman, Evenson, & Forlizzi, 2005). 1 In addition, scholars have attempted to bridge the academic-practice divide by introducing a number of established theories from other disciplines, such as cognitive science and psychology. But these attempts have not been successfully adopted by design practitioners, mounting a debate about whether theory is needed or can even contribute to the design of technology (Rogers, 2004). Rogers calls for the need to focus on “the process of design and how different kinds of designers want to be supported” (p. 134) as a way of investigating whether and how theory and scholarly research can be effectively used in interaction design. Design practitioners are assumed to be able wade through the large pool of interdisciplinary theoretical and methodological tools to determine which are best suited to help design. Here, Rogers invites us to rethink the relationship between researchers and design practitioners and to see them more as partners “engaged in an ongoing dialogue” (p. 134). Design practitioners are not theorists of human nature, so the challenges of incorporating human theories (psychological and sociological) may deter professionals from turning to theory or scholarly research. The gap between theory and design practice has meaningful implications, including making it difficult for design practitioners to employ the outcomes of HCI research. When theories are not connected to practice, they have limited value. And when practice does not conform to theory, it may produce unintended consequences. Furthermore, relying on a select set of theories limits design practitioners’ ability to discover new applications for interaction design. As technology touches more aspects of the human experience, more diverse and inclusive theoretical perspectives are needed. For example, there is a growing body of design literature that draws on behavioral theories largely grounded in the health and wellness domains, whereas similar work in the domain of travel is limited. This dissertation is an empirical investigation of the role that theory and scholarly research play in interaction design, particularly in the travel context. It offers a response to Rogers’ call for focusing on the process of design such that it encourages a synergy between design practitioners and researchers. As such, this work is guided by two broad research questions, (1) what role can scholarly research and established theories play in navigating between research data on phenomenological experience and design practice?, and (2) how can scholarly research and established theories help navigate between phenomenological experience and design practice? 2 This dissertation consists