Using Cultural Probes in HCI4D/ICTD: A Design Case Study from Bungoma, Kenya

SUSAN WYCHE, Michigan State University, Department of Media and Information, USA

Cultural probes have long been used in HCI to provide designers with glimpses into the local cultures for which they are designing, and thereby inspire novel design proposals. HCI4D/ICTD researchers are increasingly interested in more deeply understanding local cultures in the developing regions where they work, in designing technologies that are not strictly related to socioeconomic development, and in considering new design approaches. However, few use this subjective, design-led method in their research. In this paper, I present a case study detailing my experience designing and deploying cultural probes in Bungoma, Kenya. Returns from my comment cards and digital camera activities draw attention to probe recipients’ unique experiences and to Bungoma’s distinctive characteristics; they also inspired a series of speculative design proposals. My experience motivates a discussion that elaborates on how a cultural probes approach can benefit HCI4D/ICTD research by raising questions about generalizability, objectivity, and the pursuit of a single solution in design. More broadly, I offer a case study demonstrating an alternative way to approach design in HCI4D/ICTD. CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI) → HCI design and evaluation methods

KEYWORDS Cultural probes; design; design workbooks; HCI4D; Kenya; ICTD; speculative design ACM Reference format: Susan Wyche. 2020. Using Cultural Probes in HCI4D/ICTD: A Design Case Study from Bungoma, Kenya. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, CSCW1, Article 63 (May 2020), 20 pages, https://doi.org/10.1145/3392873

1 INTRODUCTION The big problem with information technology is that it tries so hard to be rational [[32], p. 7].

Twenty years ago, Bill Gaver et al. introduced cultural probes to the HCI community [28]. Since then, HCI has seen widespread use of these designed objects—packages containing open-ended and provocative activities (e.g., postcards, cameras, diaries, and maps). Probes are meant to provide designers with a rich and varied set 63 of materials to inspire design concepts, that are grounded in local cultures [28,32]. However, this highly subjective, design-led approach has been underutilized in HCI for Development (HCI4D) and Information Communication Technology for Development (ICTD). These are established research areas within HCI that examine how technology “can be appropriately designed to … address the distinctive needs of users in developing regions” [[34], p. 1]. HCI4D/ICTD researchers primarily use traditional user research methods (e.g., interviews, ethnography, and surveys) to investigate technology use in these regions, and to inform the design of prototype systems [20,57]. These systems have traditionally been designed to address needs

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. 2573-0142/2020/May – Article 63… $15.00 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392873

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:2

Figure 1: Comment Cards Box and Digital Camera

associated with socioeconomic development (e.g., health, education, and livelihoods) [20,34]. However, researchers in these fields are working to broaden their concerns beyond these traditional ones, and to more deeply understand how the contexts where they work can motivate design interventions that support, for example, leisure [48], playfulness [25], and associated ludic experiences [16]. This shift creates opportunities for broadening the methods used in HCI4D/ICTD. Cultural probes are well-suited for exploring, and inspiring these new design opportunities. More broadly, their use can promote discussions about new and alternative approaches to design within these communities [36,56]. Because their motivations come from art and design, cultural probes embody a different set of sensibilities than other methods more commonly used in HCI and HCI4D/ICTD. These differences are especially related to how probes engage their recipients and embrace researchers’ subjective knowledge, and to how the information that emerges from them is analyzed and used to inspire design. Fundamentally, cultural probes are meant to subvert traditional HCI methods [11]. That is, the approach is intended to offer an alternative to the prevailing rational and scientific processes used in the field [28,32,33]. However, the experimental and subversive nature of the original probes is often lost. The approach has been widely rationalized, and used in ways that are similar to traditional methods in HCI [11,33]. In this paper, I1 describe my experience using cultural probes as Gaver et al. originally intended. Specifically, I detail the early stages of an ongoing design project investigating domestic technology use in rural households located in Bungoma County, Kenya. To date, I have visited participants’ homes twice. My first time was in June 2016, when I presented the probe activities—responding to comment cards and taking

1 There are prior examples of writing in the first person in the CSCW/CHI proceedings (e.g., [51]), however, it is rarely done. I have mostly written in the first person throughout this paper, because a cultural probes approach embraces a designer’s stance or positionality (e.g., their gender, race, age, personal experiences, linguistic tradition, beliefs, and biases) in the design process [32,33]. This positionality can be demonstrated by use of first-person language in writing [8].

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:3 Susan Wyche

digital photographs—to 22 participants. In May 2017, I returned to their households to discuss their responses. Since then, I have created a collection of speculative design proposals, which were inspired by these experiences. My approach was guided by the design process detailed in Gaver’s 2001 book The Presence Project [32]. As such, I do not present systematic findings from my fieldwork, nor is this intended to be a how-to guide for using cultural probes in developing regions2. Instead, I contribute a novel design case study, which provides information typically missing from prior studies that use the method. Boehner et al. argue that providing this “rich explanation”, or grounding the method in its corresponding methodology is a significant—but often overlooked—aspect of cultural probe use in HCI [[11], p. 1081]. In particular, I detail my stance, the decisions I made when designing and deploying my probes in Bungoma, the conversations participants’ responses initiated, my interpretations of a handful of these responses, and seven speculative design concepts which were inspired by my experience. I then discuss how this approach can benefit HCI4D/ICTD research by raising questions about generalizability, objectivity, and the pursuit of a single solution in design. More broadly, this paper offers an alternative approach to design for HCI4D/ICTD researchers to consider.

2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK Gaver et al. detail their motivations for developing cultural probes in The Presence Project. This book describes their use of the method to investigate “ways technology could be used to increase the presence of older people” in three European towns [[32], p. 12]. It also features design proposals that were inspired by their participants’ probe returns. Gaver et al.’s project was motivated by a desire to challenge stereotypes that older adults are “frail and needy,” and to avoid “the obvious route” of designing technology meant to address older adults’ problems. Instead, their goal was to explore how technology could “tell stories and support values different from those currently recognized” in design [[32], p. 22]. To achieve this goal, they developed a process that prioritized subjectivity, uncertainty, and speculation in design. Cultural probes were a significant part of this process: they were a new method, designed to offer an alternative to traditional user research methods. The case study presented here draws heavily from the process detailed in The Presence Project. Cultural probes are designed objects—frequently packages—that contain open-ended, evocative and ambiguous activities given to people to pursue, and return over a period of time. These activities are meant to provide designers with an understanding of local cultures (the experience of everyday life in specific localities). They also support the collection of “inspirational data,” that stimulates a designer’s imagination, rather than “informational data”, that is typically used to identify problems associated with users’ needs in HCI, and HCI4D/ICTD [28,32,33]. Probe activities are meant to be playful and fun; as such, probe items have included prepaid, pre-addressed postcards (with questions for participants to answer), disposable cameras (with suggestions for photographs printed on them), maps and diaries that, for example, ask people to highlight important areas in their environment, and even a dream recorder (a repackaged digital memo-taker to use upon awakening from a dream). Probe activities are also meant to elicit responses which, rather than serve as the basis for formal analysis, are meant to provide designers with glimpses of communities targeted for design. Ultimately, these responses should inspire technologies that support the more pleasurable aspects of people’s everyday lives, rather than the utilitarian [11,30,33]. Since their introduction, the use of probes has flourished in HCI. They have been used to explore how to design technologies—in developed contexts—that support intimacy in homes [39], breastfeeding [54], sustainable food practices [6], and older adults’ activities [55]. The approach has also inspired related methods, including design probes [53], technology probes [35], and digital probes [38]. The widespread uptake of the method has also generated debates within HCI, especially about how probes are used in ways that are a

2 Probes were never intended to be a reproducible method. There is no one right way to use them [33]. 63:4

departure from Gaver et al.’s original intentions [10,11,53]. Gaver emphasizes that probes are meant to “disrupt expectations about user research” [[32], p. 22]. He adds, that cultural probes are not meant to support gathering user requirements, for evaluating prototypes, or for complementing traditional HCI user research methods [32,33]. Nonetheless, probes are frequently used for these purposes (see [11] for review). Researchers argue that doing so allows them to take full advantage of the method [33], but Gaver et al. contend that—by doing this—researchers risk losing the potential benefits of using cultural probes. These benefits include valuing subjective knowledge in design (i.e., designers’ personal thoughts and experiences), and understanding design domains in novel ways (i.e., opening new opportunities for design) [33]. Related concerns about using cultural probes in HCI, center on how to first analyze the responses that emerge from the probe activities and to then translate them into design proposals. Gaver admits that this process is challenging [33]. What is clear is that traditional qualitative analysis techniques—in particular, those that seek to offer an average picture (e.g., coding, pattern and/or thematic analyses)—compromise his original intentions. Probe responses are meant to be interpreted, rather than quantified [42]. They should also stimulate conversations between designers and users, and support evolving and diverse interpretations of the people who produced the responses [11,28]. These conversations and interpretations form the basis for rich and multilayered stories which are useful for inspiring design proposals. Boehner et al. draw attention to these and other concerns in their thoughtful review and critique of the uptake of cultural probes in HCI research [11]. They examined approximately 90 papers that mention “probes”, and then identified characteristics associated with their use in HCI research (“Probes as Packet”; “Probes as Data Collection”; etc.). They found that researchers modify cultural probes to get expected results, treat the method as a reproducible one, and generally disregard that cultural probes were originally aimed at subverting traditional HCI methods. These scholars argue that their findings raise broader epistemological questions in HCI; that is, questions about knowledge in the field and how it is produced. Specifically, they observe a tendency for researchers to disassociate the methodology from the method (also observed in uptake of ethnography in HCI [24]). A methodology implements an epistemology by configuring methods in particular ways [5]. Using cultural probes in ways that disassociate the method from its corresponding methodology, or epistemic grounding, makes their results less meaningful [11]. More broadly, this disassociation also minimizes the benefits that cultural probes can bring to HCI, especially in terms of how the method supports new ways to engage with users and offers an alternatives to dominant engineering approaches used in the field. These scholars add that using cultural probes—as they were originally intended to be used—can create space for new forms of knowledge production in the field [11]. Boehner et al. observe that although “(t)here is nothing wrong” with using probes as if they were a traditional HCI research method, doing so requires “an awareness of which essential aspects of … probes are being adopted and which are not” [[11], p. 1084]. This awareness includes providing a “rich explanation of the approach” that details “the stance of the designer”, and embracing the subjective uncertainty that accompanies interpreting probe returns and translating them into design proposals [[11], p. 1081]. Boehner et al. conclude, that studies which do not provide this awareness, should reconsider describing the method as a probe. Gaver et al. provide this awareness in The Presence Project, and argue that doing so is central to using cultural probes in a way that is aligned with their original intentions [39]. Wallace et al. similarly offer a comprehensive review of how they design and deployed probes in their work [53]. In this paper, I build upon these efforts by providing the rich explanation that Boehner et al. ask for [13]. I then use this explanation as a starting point for a discussion about the role of cultural probes in HCI4D/ICTD research, and more broadly for promoting conversations about alternative approaches to design in these fields.

2.1 Cultural Probes in HCI4D/ICTD An approach that is meant to understand local cultures, and that also emphasizes creating conversations with people, seems highly compatible with HCI4D/ICTD. Although there have been prior uses of design and

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:5 Susan Wyche

participatory methods in developing contexts (e.g., [4,15,41]), as well as calls for using cultural probes in them [40], there are just a few instances of using this method in HCI4D/ICTD research, and none that offer a detailed account such as the one which I present here. Densmore calls observing how employees in an Ugandan NGO interact with Claim Mobile (a smartphone- based data collection application) a cultural probe [22]. Dell et al. describe using a design probe—in the form of an online survey design tool—in their investigation of paper-digital workflows within global development organizations [21]. However, these examples lack key probe elements (e.g., no packages with evocative activities, or documentation of the designers’ subjective interpretation of probe returns). These efforts are similar to others that attempt to fit probes into traditional design approaches and dissociate the method from its corresponding methodology [11]. Prior efforts that are more aligned with Gaver et al.’s original intentions include Chavan and Munshi’s use of emotion tickets to explore emotions associated with technology in Iowa, US and in Mumbai, India [14]. Camara et al. mention using cultural probes when designing technologies for African farmers [13]. Fisher et al. use probe-like activities (e.g., creating low-fidelity prototypes using craft materials) to elicit imaginative design concepts from East African and Myanmarese (Burmese) refugees in their Teen Design Days workshops, held in Seattle, US [26,43]. Lastly, Soro et al. used probes in a remote Aboriginal community, and found that they were useful for fostering engagement and for providing unanticipated insights. They concluded that the method has value in cross-cultural design projects [49]. I agree with their conclusion, and build upon their research by using cultural probes in rural Kenya.

2.2 Critiques of Cultural Probes However, some scholars argue that probes may not be useful for such cross-cultural projects. The method has been described as a discount technique [24], and one that does not foster the long-term engagement necessary to ensure that design-oriented research (and its resulting interventions) have a positive and empowering effect on marginalized communities (e.g., [9,52]). Rather, they present ethnography as an appropriate approach to fieldwork in HCI4D/ICTD. There are some obvious strengths to an ethnographic approach: spending an extended period of time in a community; building meaningful relationships with participants; and seeking to ensure that the research will have a positive and empowering effect on communities [47]. However, living in communities under study for multiple months or years, may not always be feasible for HCI4D/ICTD researchers. Faculty and students’ commitments (teaching, service, and personal), restrictive time-frames for many HCI4D/ICTD projects, as well as challenges with sustaining funding to conduct international fieldwork [27], can complicate such efforts. Furthermore—and as Boehner et al. observe—probes were never intended to be used as a substitute for ethnography, because they support a different kind of engagement with respondents; one that encourages playful and unexpected responses that are useful for design [10]. Cultural probe returns are also not meant to inform implications for design; that is, what ethnography has widely been used for within HCI and HCI4D/ICTD [24]. Instead, they support the imagining of speculative design proposals [29,32]. Finally, Boehner et al. write that there is nothing cut-rate about the use of probes in design research, adding that “designers may spend less time in the field, but time is shifted not saved” [[10], p. 198]. I agree with their perspectives, and demonstrate the practical benefits probes can have for HCI4D/ICTD researchers; in particular, for supporting long-term intermittent engagement with communities under study. Deeper investigations into probe use are ultimately beneficial to the fields of HCI4D/ICTD, as they offer another way for researchers to understand—and design with—local cultures where they work.

3 RICH EXPLANATION OF MY APPROACH Here I provide the rich explanation of my approach, or epistemic grounding, that Boehner et al. ask for when using cultural probes. I begin by describing my stance, and then explain my probe activities, detailing why I chose them and how they were introduced to 22 volunteer households. I also recount my follow-up visit to 63:6

these households. Next I present my interpretations of a few of the participants’ handwritten comments and digital photographs. Lastly, I describe how these returns inspired a collection of speculative design proposals, which I will share and discuss with participants when I return to Bungoma.

3.1 My Stance Whereas most research approaches minimize or disguise the subjectivity inherent in their use, a cultural probes approach requires embracing subjectivity and reflexivity [11,32], whereby the designer can acknowledge how their position influences the types of information collected, and the ways it is interpreted [50]. I am trained as an industrial designer, and now work as an HCI professor. I was born and socialized in the US, and have been conducting research in Bungoma County, a rural area in western Kenya, since 2011. I travel there once or twice a year, stay for two to six weeks at a time, and broadly investigate people’s interactions with technology, especially mobile phones [59–61]. While in the field, I am generally referred to as a mzungu (Swahili for “foreigner”/”white person”). My skin color, education level, and comparative wealth are clear markers of difference between me and most people in Bungoma. I am aware of, and sensitive to, the power asymmetries underlying my fieldwork and post- fieldwork processes, and am committed to conducting research in a respectful manner. This awareness influenced my decision to use cultural probes, because they can be useful for promoting more equitable listening and telling between researchers and participants [32]. I am also committed to conducting ethical research, and these principles guided my project: carefully describing my project to participants (including how their probe responses would be used), obtaining informed consent, showing respect for participants’ knowledge, following research protocols in Kenya, and returning my research findings to participants [18,47]. Finally, I am a native English speaker, and my Swahili is rudimentary at best. I require an interpreter when conducting research. Nightingale Simiyu, a Bungoma resident, has worked as my interpreter and field assistant since my first visit to the region. She is trained as a qualitative researcher, and advises me on culturally appropriate ways to conduct research in the area.

3.2 Bungoma County, Kenya Bungoma County is a rural area, situated in western Kenya’s Lake Victoria basin, an 8-hour bus ride from Nairobi. Similar to other rural and peri-urban areas in East Africa, Bungoma has a bustling town center with streets lined with shops, some restaurants, bars and hotels; brick apartment complexes and houses tend to located closer to town. Further away are smaller market towns, surrounded by rural villages with clusters of mud and thatch houses and the shamba (a small farm).

3.3 Designing The Cultural Probe Activities Here I describe which aspects of Gaver’s original design were altered or left out of my probes. These decisions were influenced by the agency funding my research, the Institutional Review Boards’ (IRB) requirements, and by contextual factors in Bungoma County. I previously mentioned that this study is part of an ongoing five- year project investigating domestic technology use and design in rural Kenya. It is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency that generally values typical science-and engineering- based research approaches, rather than artist-designer ones embodied in probes. My funding was contingent on receiving ethics approval from my university’s IRB, and from Kenya’s National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) (the organization that grants research permits to foreigners conducting research in Kenya). Gaver does not mention these conditions in his writings on probes. Engaging in these approval processes prompted me to choose probe activities that I could explain in terms of other research methods used in Kenya, and other parts of Africa (e.g., diary studies and photo elicitation). It also forced me to reconsider how strange or provocative I could be with my activities, as I feared that using these terms to describe my approach could jeopardize my obtaining the approvals.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:7 Susan Wyche

Contextual factors also affected my decisions. Although Kenya has a national postal service (Posta Kenya), mail delivery in Bungoma can be unreliable, and households that are far from town rarely have mailboxes (let alone addresses). Waiting for returns to be mailed back and to trickle in was not feasible. Rather than using postcards, I developed the comment card activity. Similar to postcards, this activity provides a mundane medium in which to ask a wide range of questions. I also did not want to strictly present the activities as a gift, which Gaver et al. describe as being a crucial part of a probes approach [32]. Compensating participants, either with a gift or with other financial incentives, is a delicate issue within development fieldwork, because it can have unintended consequences [7,47] (also observed in HCI/ICTD fieldwork [2,46]). Some scholars argue against gift giving when there is a power differential between the giver and receiver, because it can reaffirm existing socio-economic inequalities and potentially result in a “patron-client relationship,” where the recipient expects further gifts [[47], p. 176]. Although, giving people money to participate in research is generally discouraged, offering them practical assistance as compensation is encouraged [18,47]. I emphasized that the digital camera (in my probes) was compensation for participating in the study. I also gave participants 100 KES (about $1 USD) of mobile phone credit/airtime; that is, compensation I have provided in prior studies conducted in Western Kenya [59–61]. Nightingale and I concluded that the airtime, digital camera with a 4GM memory (combined value of $29 USD), as well as my commitment to return to households and give them printed copies of their pictures, was reasonable compensation for the doing the probe activities. The camera also had practical benefits, as participants could use it after the study. Reflecting on these ethical and practical constraints underlying my project, and on my assumptions about which activities participants might engage with, I developed these probe activities.

3.3.1 Responding to Comment Cards. I gave respondents a cardboard ballot box with a side pocket. In each pocket were 16, 5x4 cards with open-ended questions printed on them and a pen for writing responses (Figure 1). The front of each box featured instructions. The questions on the cards were inspired by those asked in Gaver’s projects [32]. They were open-ended, playful, slightly provocative, and intended to encourage surprising and divergent responses. Questions included: “What is something Americans should know about Kenyans?”, “What did you do with your mobile phone today?”, “Be quiet and listen. What do you hear?”, “How are you feeling today?”, “”What do you enjoy most about your home?”, and “Imagine that you could travel anywhere today. Where would you go and why?”

3.3.2 Taking Digital Photographs. The second activity was taking photographs with a compact digital camera. I attached a laminated card to each camera’s lanyard. It had open-ended and ambiguous prompts on it; these included “work”, “fun”, “light”, “faith”, and “anything you like” (Figure 1). Cameras were placed in resealable plastic bags to make them seem like a package; more practically, the bags were also meant to protect the devices from the elements. I have observed first-hand how exposure to dirt, and rainwater ruins mobile phones, and did not want these to affect the camera’s functionality.

3.4 Initiating a Dialogue with Probe Recipients Nightingale relied on her personal and professional contacts to identify probe recipients. She asked her friends to participate in the project, and then they asked their friends. Like Gaver’s approach [32], we did not attempt to control for demographics. Participants came from a range of circumstances, in terms of where they lived and how they earned a living. Households were typical in size for the area, having at least four to five people in them and up to eight children. Their members mostly engaged in informal jobs, including men who drove piki piki (motorcycle taxis) and women who sold produce. One man worked as a cobbler; others had full-wage employment.

3.4.1 Giving Households the Probes and the Interim. In June 2016, Nightingale and myself introduced ourselves to respondents, explained our project, and obtained informed consent. Nightingale moderated sessions, conducting some in English and some in Swahili. However, as is typical in Kenya all participants tended to 63:8

answer questions using a combination of both languages (i.e., code-switching). During sessions, we honestly explained our project to participants, and told them they could withdraw at any time, and that they could choose not to do the probe activities. We added that collected probe returns would be anonymous. That is, no information about participants that would enable them to be identified would appear in research outputs. Our consent process also included asking for permission to use anonymized versions of these returns in manuscripts and presentations associated with this project (Figures 2-10). All participants agreed to these conditions and verbally consented to be in the study. Lastly, and in line with Gaver’s approach, we emphasized that the activities were a way for us to get to know participants and for them to get to know us. We then gave participants the box, and asked them to respond to one or two cards every day. They were also encouraged to take pictures that corresponded to prompts on the card attached to the camera. We emphasized that these were suggestions, and that they could answer as many cards and take as many pictures as they wanted (or none at all). We ended sessions by telling them that Nightingale would return in two weeks to collect the comment cards and memory card from the cameras. We added that I would return in May 2017 to talk about their responses. In that time, I returned to the US and placed the hundreds of cards and photographs around my office. They littered my desk, covered my walls, and reminded me of life in Bungoma. I documented my thoughts about the cards, as well as my early design ideas in a journal.

3.4.2 Follow-up Visit. In May 2017, I returned to the 22 households in Bungoma. All invited me back into their homes. Before talking to participants about their responses, I explained my project’s progress, answered their questions about it, and—again—obtained informed consent. Reciprocity is important to consider when conducting ethical research. One way to achieve reciprocity is by returning findings to participants [18,47]. My cultural probes supported this; in particular, they prompted me to return to households and engage in conversations with participants about their photographs and comment card response. To initiate these discussions, I showed participants a handful of their returns (about 15-20 printed photographs and 5-7 comment cards). Everyone seemed delighted to see them—especially the pictures—and spoke openly about them. No two interviews were the same and their thrust depended on the participants, especially the number of responses they wanted to discuss and what they wanted to say about them. Each participant was given copies of their photographs and cards after the session. Lastly, I asked participants to reflect on the experience (i.e., doing the probe activities). All appreciated receiving printed copies of their pictures and that I returned to their households. None expressed negative feelings about the activities. In fact, at the end of the sessions all asked when I would return to their homes to continue our conversations.

3.5 Interpreting Probe Responses/Returns Boehner et al. observe that prior research rarely documents what takes place between reviewing probe returns and developing design proposals—a process that Gaver et al. admit is difficult [33]. Here I describe this intermediary step. Rather than provide a comprehensive analysis of participants’ 282 comment cards and 686 digital photographs, I present a few returns, and excerpts from my conversations with participants’ about them (see Figures 2-10). Gaver emphasizes that returns are not meant produce “lists of facts” about the people who made them; he adds that they can be impossible to analyze [[33], p. 55]. Instead, a probes approach acknowledges and embraces the designer’s subjective knowledge, especially the impact it has on the stories which emerge from the returns. Space precludes a complete description of the returns. Here I provide a few examples that will give readers a feel for participants’ photographs and comments. These vignettes are incomplete and biased. They are influenced by my mzungu perspective, research interests, personal experiences, and idiosyncratic curiosities. Some draw from memorable conversations I had with participants. These interpretations provide a starting point for telling stories about the probe recipients and where they live; this is what cultural probes are

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:9 Susan Wyche

Figure 2: Cultural Probe Returns (images shown with participants’ permission). intended to do [28,32]. In keeping with a cultural probes approach, I encourage readers to tell their own stories based on their interpretations of these returns.

3.5.1 Sensations in Bungoma. Responses drew attention to sensations that make up everyday life in Bungoma, including the auditory ones: roosters crowing in the morning; the sound of a garden hoe breaking soil; the rumbling of the 18-wheeler trucks on the Trans-African Highway outside of town; the sputtering of the piki- piki motorcycle taxis; the radios broadcasting news about Kenya’s then-upcoming election, and the song of the African golden weavers (Ploceus xanthops), which has been transcribed as “pew…pew…tew, chinkichi- chewchewskerinkitsitew”3. These and the other sounds (e.g., “frogs croaking” and dog barking) are

3 See: Trekanture: http://www.treknature.com/gallery/photo135223.htm 63:10

Figure 3: “I kept quiet for sometime, it was at Figure 4: “My favorite meal is brown ugali with night and I heard frogs croaking everywhere smothered mean/roasted meat. Also fried fish loudly. I heard then some foot step of a dog called and chips.” mulika mwiza barking. It was amazing.” amazing (Figure 3). As are the visual sensations around Bungoma—including the awe that comes when encountering the gigantic boulders that dot the landscape and the clouds in the area’s vast and expansive sky. Indeed, as one participant described them during our interview—they are “nice.” Responses also bring to mind the smells in Bungoma: the faint manure odor in people’s homes (that is a result of a covering houses with a mixture of cow dung and soil to prevent termites); paraffin wax burning; the smell of freshly cut sugarcane being hauled to one of the nearby sugar factories; the salty odor that accompanies drying fish; and the musty smell that typically follows the torrential downpours that seemed to occur almost daily in May and June.

3.5.2 Households. Photos and comments cards captured moments outside and inside participants’ homes. Some showed a father and son completing a new concrete cover for a borehole, and others portrayed newly- trimmed hedges outside of a rectangular, mud-thatch house. A few photos featured participants’ maize crops. “Rachel” looked at such an image and reflected on the difference between the current year’s maize crop and the previous year’s, telling me:

Last time maize was yellowish but this time they are green. You can see they were yellowish and thin but now they are thick and healthy (…).

Photos documented families gathered around wooden tables in their homes’ sitting rooms eating ugali (maize porridge), sukuma wiki (collard greens), and beef and/or chicken stew, and drinking chai (tea). Details about people’s favorite meals were written on comment cards (Figure 4). Some more intimate moments were also depicted in the photos, including people waking from sleep, and mothers bathing children. Responses to my comment card question, “What do you enjoy most about your home?,” reflected a deep appreciation for these spaces, and included:

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:11 Susan Wyche

Figure 5: (English translation) “If I get Sh. 50,000 the first Figure 6: “I would like to travel to Thailand and see thing I would do is pay for my children’s school fees. I elephants.” will buy a dairy cow. I will buy chickens to rear and when they breed and increase, I will sell them and get profit and then use that money to buy others.”

Figure 7: “I would travel to America in such of a nice job Figure 8: “bored” which includes good payment and in time. America has good summer hence I would go to experience the summer climate.”

Figure 9: “As I woked up early I found my money wich Figure 10: (English translation) “The day was good was lost for a week. I was so happy for the money and I because I had visitors from Michigan State University rushed to the restaurant to have a cup of tea which was who travelled from Nairobi. We were also visited by our hot and burnt my tongue—but from that day I would youngest daughter who brought us bananas and never forget.” potatoes. All this made my day.” 63:12

I enjoy the privacy, the freshness of my garden and the landlord free life. And I like to sit with [my] family to eat together and look at my crops in the shamba and cattle.

As well as:

The thing I enjoy most about my home is just my shamba and my children also make me joy. Listening to their funny stories and also dancing for me.

3.5.3 Things People Use. Mobile phones are ubiquitous in Bungoma, and as such were present in photographs (Figure 2). They were used for reading the Bible, or—more frequently—just “chatting with friends.” Participants also described using the devices to play SportPesa, a mobile sports betting platform (using the money stored on their handsets, they placed bets on their favorite football teams). Stackable plastic chairs were also ubiquitous in the area. They are inexpensive, lightweight, durable, and significantly more comfortable than the wooden chairs also present in people’s homes. Some participants had 20-35 of these chairs. They rent them to people organizing weddings and funerals, and earn a living this way. Other photos included things that helped people earn a living, including pedal-powered Singer sewing machines, and motorcycles (which many decorated, telling us that tassels on the seats and handlebars help to attract customers).

3.5.4 Appreciation for Livestock. Livestock is an integral part of people’s lives in rural Kenya. They are an important resource, as well as a means of accumulating wealth. Visits to people’s homes sometimes include meeting their cows. I have heard stories about caring for them, including advice that dairy cows will give more milk if you let them listen to the radio and sleep on old mattresses. “Rebeka’s” description of a cow she once had captures this appreciation and fondness many people have for their cows:

The is the cow that I sold. Now I can only remember; it was a nice cow. I named it Joy.

Cows and other livestock (including goats, and especially chickens) were mentioned in responses to my question, “If you had 50,000 KES (about $490 USD), what would you do with it?” People imagined using the money to invest in chickens, recognizing that raising them can result in multiple ways of earning money: selling eggs, their meat, etc. (Figure 5). In particular, people wanted local chickens (the Bungoma kuku kienyeji breed). These were preferred over other breeds because of their sweet taste and ability to mature quickly without being given growth hormones.

3.5.5 Surprises and Shared Experiences. Probe returns should be surprising, and many of mine were. Some made me laugh, and prompted more questions than answers (for instance, the response to “Imagine that you can travel anywhere today. Where would you go and why?”). The response in Figure 6 was unexpected, given that Kenya is home to elephants. Another card mentioned travelling to America for its good climate, a comment, which I found this humorous because I live in a part of the US known for having brutally cold winters (Figure 7). The cards also captured participants’ prosaic experiences (e.g., feeling “bored”), surprises in their

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:13 Susan Wyche

Figure 11: My Speculative Design Proposals everyday lives, and their reflections on my visit to their homes (see Figures 8-10). Replies to my question about “what Americans should know” focused on Kenya’s “diverse culture,” and trivial facts, for example, that Nairobi is the only capital city with a national park. Other responses that commented on shared experiences that transcend geographic and cultural boundaries (for instance, Father’s Day—June 20, 2016—which occurred during the probes’ deployment period).

63:14

3.5 Speculative Design Proposals Gaver writes that design ideas emerge slowly over time [31]. It has taken me more than a year to develop 15 design proposals; I present seven of them here. Rather than using the returns to inform design guidelines or testable prototypes, I developed a collection of speculative design proposals; these will ultimately become a design workbook. Workbooks are “collections of design proposals … drawn together during projects to investigate options for design” [[31], p. 1551]. These concepts (like those presented in The Presence Project) are speculations. Although all of my ideas are technically plausible, they are not intended to be developed; instead, they are meant to draw attention to new ways of considering design in Bungoma, and in developing contexts more broadly. All of my proposals were inspired by my interpretations of the probe returns, and anecdotes from my visits to Bungoma. Most concepts Figure 12: Speculative Design Proposal began as rough sketches (from my journal). I then created the design proposals, using techniques similar to those Gaver’s. I searched the internet, and my collection of photographs, and then used software tools (Adobe PhotoshopTM and IllustratorTM)—to create the pictures, and accompanying captions shown in Figures 11 and 12. I will share these ideas (as design workbooks) with participants when I return to Bungoma. My hope is that they will support conversations between me, and members of the households who received my probe packages. Such conversations are intended to help designers explore, reflect on, and expand the design space [29]. Prior studies that use design workbooks demonstrate that they are effective for “broadening the imagination about what is possible” [[58], p. 111]. Proposal a. was inspired by a previously mentioned story about participants’ strategies to encourage their cows to produce more milk. The concept shows an antique wind-up music box that, when cranked would play calming music for dairy cows. Answers to questions about where people wanted to travel inspired the next proposal b.; a mobile phone application that allows people take pictures of themselves in different parts of Kenya (e.g., Nairobi), the world (e.g., Washington D.C.), or with Barack Obama. The former US president is popular in Bungoma, for various reasons, including that his grandfather’s third wife lives in the region. The next concept emerged from my interest in plastic chairs c.—in particular, how they can be the basis for a business (e.g., renting them out for use at weddings and funerals). The image depicts a chair fitted with a pressure-sensor mechanism that monitors how long someone sits on it, and a screen which displays the money earned from that time. Free-range chickens, or kuku (in Swahili), are widely kept in Western Kenya. It is common to hear them crowing at the break of dawn, to see them underfoot in households, and to eat them for dinner. In Bungoma, poultry production is a significant activity, because chickens are a source of protein for households. Sales of their eggs and meat are also sources of income. Because they are so valuable, chickens are sometimes stolen from people’s compounds. I wondered how technology might support participants’ efforts to monitor their chickens. Proposal d. imagines using a surveillance camera to track participants’ chickens. It then relays information about the chickens’ whereabouts to their owner’s mobile phone. Concept e. was inspired by Bungoma’s vast blue skies, as well as by a desire to imagine novel ways to deliver information to rural farmers. For example, what if skywriting planes were used to tell farmers when it was time to harvest their maize, or to provide them with other pertinent information? Proposal f. depicts a library located on C33 (one of the main roads in Bungoma). Design proposals can be provocative [29]. Proposals f. and g. are meant to raise questions and spur discussions about, for example, US technology companies and Western researchers’ presence in Africa. PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:15 Susan Wyche

Proposal g. depicts a system named MtafitiOpticon (‘mtafiti’ is Swahili for ‘researcher’). This concept was inspired by Irani and Silberman’s Turkopticon, an “activist system that allows [Amazon Mechanical Turk] workers to publicize and evaluate their relationships with employers” [[37], p. 611]. Here, research participants can use a mobile application to evaluate researchers on whether or not their compensation for research participation was sufficient. They could also use the application to send feedback about the researcher to a university’s IRB, or to NACOSTI. Although the inspiration for each proposal was different, none of them could have been produced without the probe returns.

4 DISCUSSION Here I return to the motivation for my study: exploring how to use cultural probes in Bungoma, Kenya, and more broadly within HCI4D/ICTD. This paper contributes a novel case study that demonstrates how to use cultural probes in a new context. Unlike the vast majority of prior studies that use cultural probes I attempted to stay true to Gaver’s original intentions when designing, and deploying them, as well as when analyzing the returns. I provide the epistemic grounding, or rich explanation of my approach that includes my stance and interpretation process, as well as insights into how the probe returns inspired a collection of speculative design proposals. This information is rarely included in prior studies [11]. My case study details an alternative to traditional design approaches used in HCI4D/ICTD. Further, and as my speculative design proposals demonstrate, my approach successfully inspired novel ideas that can potentially shift perceptions about technology design in HCI4D/ICTD. This means broadening these communities’ concerns beyond the traditional socioeconomic ones, and even beyond more recent interests in leisure and entertainment [16,25]. Novel possibilities include drawing attention to non-digital and even absurd technology interventions, as well as using design to ask provocative questions about the power relations inherent in HCI4D/ICTD research (i.e., researchers from resource-rich institutions in the north, dominating knowledge production about people in the south). Next I elaborate on the significance of providing this rich explanation when using cultural probes, in particular how doing so can benefit HCI4D/ICTD. By providing this information I ground my use of cultural probes in the method’s underlying methodology. I argue that doing this can benefit HCI4D/ICTD design processes by raising questions about generalizability and objectivity in research, as well as about the pursuit of a single design solution. More broadly, my hope is that by asking these questions, this research will contribute to ongoing discussions about how HCI4D/ICTD [36,56]—HCI more generally—can create space for new forms of knowledge production.

4.1 Questioning Generalizations In The Presence Project, Gaver and his collaborators explain that cultural probes emerged from their desire to develop a new design method to uncover non-stereotypical insights about older adults. They argued that traditional design methods lead to designs that emphasized “the negative aspects” of older adults’ lives [32]. My use of cultural probes was motivated by a similar desire to question generalizations about developing regions and the people who live in them. “Poor”, “marginalized”, “underserved”, “vulnerable”, and “culturally distant”, are terms frequently used to characterize populations and contexts in HCI4D/ICTD (see [20,44]). These characterizations do not fully account for the factors that contribute to these conditions [47]. Moreover—as Rogers and Marsden argue—they may unintentionally lead to designs that contribute to a rhetoric of compassion, which “perpetuates the asymmetrical relationship between those who have and those who have not” [[45], p. 51]. Participants’ probe responses draw attention to other aspects of their lives. The comment cards and photographs were diverse; they captured the ordinary, humorous, delightful, and routine aspects of individual people. In my experience, these non-generalizable and one-off observations can be difficult to uncover (and to report) via traditional user research methods. These observations are the outcome of an approach that complicates efforts to make generalizations: from choosing distinctive activities that make sense in the context where they will be deployed (comment cards 63:16

rather than postcards); to asking questions that are intended to elicit divergent rather than convergent responses; to identifying recipients (an unsystematic approach); and to subjectively interpreting responses (instead of identifying consistent themes). My approach emphasized differences between households, and drew attention to people’s unique experiences, and to Bungoma’s distinctive sensory characteristics. These included the areas’ sounds, smells, and even tastes (i.e., of local chickens). Considering an approach that results in nongeneralizable outcomes may be especially useful for HCI4D/ICTD researchers. In particular, using cultural probes in HCI4D/ICTD responds to scholars’ critiques of a tendency within these communities to homogenize African users’ diverse technological experiences [56]. A probes approach allows researchers to understand specific contexts on their own terms, and thus to avoid the dangers of oversimplifying Africans’ experiences.

4.2 Questioning Objectivity Cultural probes emerged as a response to what Gaver perceived as the limitations inherent in traditional user research methods. He wrote that these methods can render researchers “detached” authorities [[32], p.23]. This sentiment reflects broader critiques of objective social science methods, that position researchers as unbiased and value-free. These methods also tend to minimize, or remove the observer’s point of view from the research process, because acknowledging it could bias the results [1]. Within HCI and HCI4D/ICTD, there has been a shift among designers to devote space in their papers that describes how their positionality influences their work [3,5,17,18,56]. This is a welcome change that increases transparency about the relationships between researchers and participants. In my project, this transparency included acknowledging my mzungu point of view in my design process, and the ways my limited fluency in Swahili impacted my research. I also noted how funding and ethics committees (i.e., NSF, IRB, NACOSTI) affected my choices about activities included in my probe packages. My probes approach also prompted me to make visible the mostly invisible work that my local research assistant does, as well as the practical constraints that limit my time in the field. A cultural probes approach encourages designers to not just acknowledge, but to also embrace the role their subjective knowledge and personal biases play in interpreting probe returns and in inspiring design proposal. In this sense, using cultural probes draws even more attention to the messiness underlying all research and design endeavors, but which is often omitted from HCI, and HCI4D/ICTD publications [17]. Accounting for this messiness, in particular, the stance of the designer can be beneficial in HCI4D/ICTD. Revealing oneself throughout the design process seems especially important for the ways it can foster discussions about what it means to design for, and conduct research in, a community that one is not a member of. Like me, many HCI4D/ICTD researchers are not members of the communities they study, nor are they based where they conduct their research [2,19,49]. Implementing a design approach that embraces a designer’s stance can be useful for understanding what is gained (and lost) from observing as an outsider. It can also support reflection among African-born designers, and those who are based on the continent, about how these experiences benefit their design work. Adopting this approach offers HCI4D/ICTD researchers another way to talk about themselves, especially how their personal experiences affect their work.

4.3 Questioning Working Towards a Single Design Solution Developing a single design solution that addresses a socioeconomic problem, and that scales (i.e., that works for as many people as possible) is something some HCI4D/ICTD researchers strive to do (e.g., [42]). Arriving at a single solution requires a narrowing of the design space [12]. A probes approach offers an alternative to this traditional design approach; it supports developing a wide range of proposals, and allows designers to explore different issues without imposing a single solution. As of this writing, I have developed 15 distinctive design proposals (seven are presented here), that were inspired by the cultural probe returns. These proposals will comprise a design workbook. Gaver developed this as a method that recognizes that ideas can emerge slowly over time and to “ease the pressure” of

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:17 Susan Wyche

designing one solution Instead, workbooks support designers’ exploration of a larger design space by—in Gaver’s words—“exploiting the combinatorial explosion of similarities and differences among many such proposals” [[31], p. 1554]. The proposals are to be shared with people. Because they are intentionally unfinished they allow for conversations to emerge between designers and the people they are designing for. These conversations support participants’ participation in the design process by allowing them to critique ideas, and to ask questions about them. Would placing a surveillance camera on a compound really prevent chicken theft? Or, would it raise new concerns about privacy? Would monitoring how long someone sits in a plastic chair just prompt them to look for another place to sit? If it rains, or is cloudy, how can farmers see messages written in the sky? Other than working to improve internet connectivity, are there other ways technology companies (e.g., Google) can work to improve access to information in rural areas? Would people actually use MtafitiOpticon to comment on their interactions with researchers? These are questions that might emerge from my conversations with participants, when I show them my design proposals. Answers to them would provide me with a deeper understanding of how these speculative interventions might impact their communities. Talking to participants about these ideas might also serve as a starting point for alternative design concepts, or even draw attention to ideas that should not be pursued. My use of cultural probes—in particular my development of speculative design proposals, rather than testable prototypes—can be useful for answering such questions. Further, the multiple insights which might emerge from talking to participants about these hypothetical ideas would be difficult to obtain from a traditional evaluation of a single prototype system. Given that many large-scale ICTD projects fail (see [23]), it may be worth considering a design approach that results in design proposals which are not necessarily meant to be implemented, but which are instead intended to raise questions and support mutual understanding between designers and users. Finally, a design approach that acknowledges the ways knowledge is subjective, situated, negotiated and part of an ongoing process, as well as the role ambiguity plays in design outcomes looks different than the rational and scientific approaches more commonly used in HCI4D/ICTD. As such, a cultural probes approach is aligned with Winschiers-Theophilus and Bidwell’s call for a “Afro-Centric Indigenous HCI Paradigm” in design [[56], p. 254]. These scholars call for “shifting focus to local … practices”, “reflecting on the self”, and encouraging a “plurality of perspectives” in design; that is, factors which are all supported by using cultural probes. From a postcolonial computing perspective [36], continuing to explore the use of cultural probes in HCI4D/ICTD can only benefit these communities because they allow for knowledge—often excluded from dominant Euro-Western paradigms—to be included in research.

5 LIMITATIONS, FUTURE WORK, AND CONCLUSION I present a personal account of my experience using cultural probes in Bungoma County, Kenya. My exploration into using the method in rural Kenya seemed successful. This conclusion is based on the richness and diversity of the hundreds of photographs participants took, the stories and design proposals that emerged from my interactions with them, and the ongoing conversations between myself and the probe recipients. I presented a few of the probe returns here, and will explore other ways to disseminate them (e.g., a website). I anticipate learning more about the important issues affecting participants’ interactions with technology when I share my design workbook with them upon my return to their homes. This case study is just one account; I acknowledge that another person’s experience would be different, as would my use of the approach elsewhere in Kenya. A person who is more fluent in Swahili, may have written the probe activities in that language. If I was conducting research in, for example, Siaya County, I would consider using Dholuo (the language which is more commonly spoken there) when developing probe activities. If my project was being carried out in an urban area, such as Nairobi, I may have relied on the postal service to deliver the probe returns to me, because it tends to be more reliable there than in Bungoma. Similarly, the returns that would emerge from deploying probes elsewhere, and with different people, would be different than those I received, as would someone else’s interpretation of them, and the design concepts 63:18

they would inspire. Herein lies another benefit of using cultural probes in HCI4D/ICT4D, it draws attention to these important, but often overlooked differences in countries, and in how researchers respond to them. My conclusion is that greater use of cultural probes has much to offer HCI4D/ICT4D, especially for the ways they acknowledge the subjectivity, bias, complexity, and emotion that is inherent (and unavoidable) in research. My hope is that embracing these factors can inject more creativity into how research is conducted in developing regions, and into the technologies designed for them, promote challenging discussions about the nature of HCI4D/ICTD research and how it is conducted, and prompt these communities to take seriously alternative forms of knowledge in design.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to our participants for their time. Special thanks to Nightingale Simiyu for her research assistance and to Dr. Megan Halpern for carefully commenting on drafts of this manuscript. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Award number 1452479).

REFERENCES [1] Joan Acker, Kate Barry, and Joke Esseveld. 1983. Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. Women’s Studies International Forum 6(4), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(83)90035-3 [2] Yaw Anokwa, Thomas N. Smyth, Divya Ramachandran, Jahanzeb Sherwani, Yael Schwartzman, Rowena Luk, Melissa Ho, Neema Moraveji, and Brian DeRenzi. 2009. Stories from the field: Reflections on HCI4D experiences. Information Technologies & International Development 5(4), 101-115. [3] Seyram Avle and Silvia Lindtner. 2016. Design(ing) ‘Here’ and ‘There’: Tech Entrepreneurs, Global Markets, and Reflexivity in Design Processes. In Proceedings of the 2016 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16), May 7-12, 2016, San Jose, California. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 2233–2245. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858509 [4] Kagonya Awori, Frank Vetere, and Wally Smith. 2016. Sessions with grandma: fostering indigenous knowledge through video mediated communication. In Proceedings of the First African Conference on Human Computer Interaction (AfriCHI’16), November 21-25, 2016, Nairobi, Kenya. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998581.2998585 [5] Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2011. Towards a feminist HCI methodology: social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the 2011 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11), May 7-12, 2011, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979041 [6] Eric P.S. Baumer, Megan Halpern, Vera Khovanskaya, and G. Gay. 2014. Probing the market: Using cultural probes to inform design for sustainable food practices at a farmers’ market. In Jaz Hee-jeong Choi, Marcus Foth and Greg Hearn (eds.). Eat, Cook, Grow: Mixing Human-Computer Interaction and Human-Food Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 135–152. [7] Carey Bell, Rachel Dzombak, Tara Sulewski, and Khanjan Mehta. 2012. Preparing and complying with Institutional Review Board protocols for integrated research and entrepreneurship ventures in developing countries. Journal of Ethics & Entrepreneurship 2(1), 21-35. [8] Roni Berger. 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative research 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475 [9] Nicola J. Bidwell, Masbulele Siya, Gary Marsden, William D. Tucker, M. Tshemese, N. Gaven, S. Ntlangano, Simon Robinson, and Kristen A. L. I. Eglinton. 2013. Walking and the Social Life of Solar Charging in Rural Africa. ACM Trans.Comput.-Hum. Interact (TOCHI) 20(4), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493524 [10] Kirsten Boehner, William Gaver, and Andy Boucher. 2012. Probes. In Celia Lury and Nina Wakeford (eds.). Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. Routledge, London, 185-201. [11] Kirsten Boehner, Janet Vertesi, Phoebe Sengers, and Paul Dourish. 2007. How HCI interprets the probes. In Proceedings of the 2007 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’07), April 28-May 3, 2007, San Jose, California. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240789 [12] B. Buxton. 2007. Sketching User Experiences. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco. [13] Souleymane Boundaouda Camara, José Abdelnour Noœra, and Lynne Dunckley. 2008. Exploring the problem domain: a socio- technical ICT design for the developing world. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (PDC’08), September 20-October 4, 2008, Bloomington, Indiana. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 154–157. https://doi.org/10.1145/1795234.1795258 [14] Apala Lahiri Chavan and Sushmita Munshi. 2004. Emotion in a ticket. In Extended Abstracts of the 2004 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’04), April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1544. https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986120 [15] George Hope Chidziwisano and Susan Wyche. 2018. M-Kulinda: Using a Sensor-Based Technology Probe to Explore Domestic Security in Rural Kenya. In Proceedings of the 2018 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18), April 21-26, PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.

63:19 Susan Wyche

2018, Montreal, Canada. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173584 [16] Padma Chirumamilla and Joyojeet Pal. 2013. Play and Power: a ludic design proposal for ICTD. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD’13), December 7-10, 2013, Cape Town, South Africa. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 25–33. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1145/2516604.2516628 [17] Christopher A. Le Dantec and Sarah Fox. 2015. Strangers at the gate: Gaining access, building rapport, and co-constructing community-based research. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW’15), March 14-18, 2015, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1348–1358. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675147 [18] Andy Dearden and Dorothea Kleine. 2018. Minimum ethical standards for ICTD/ICT4D research. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. [19] Andy Dearden and William D. Tucker. 2015. The ethical limits of bungee research in ICTD. 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), November 11-12, 2015, Dublin Ireland, IEEE, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2015.7439430 [20] Nicola Dell and Neha Kumar. 2016. The Ins and Outs of HCI for Development. In Proceedings of the 2016 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16), May 7-12, 2015, San Jose, California. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 2220–2232. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858081 [21] Nicola Dell, Trevor Perrier, Neha Kumar, Mitchell Lee, Rachel Powers, and Gaetano Borriello. 2015. Paper-Digital Workflows in Global Development Organizations. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW’15), March 14-18, 2015, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1659–1669. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675145 [22] Melissa Densmore. 2012. Claim mobile: When to fail a technology. In Proceedings of the 2012 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12), May 5-10, 2012, Austin, Texas. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1833–1842. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208319 [23] Leslie L. Dodson, S. Sterling, and John K. Bennett. 2012. Considering failure: eight years of ITID research. Information Technologies & International Development 9(2), 19-43. [24] Paul Dourish. 2006. Implications for Design. In Proceedings of the 2006 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’06), April 22-27, 2006, Montreal, Canada. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124855 [25] Pedro Ferreira and Kristina Höök. 2012. Appreciating plei-plei around mobiles: Playfulness in Rah Island. In Proceedings of the 2012 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12), May 5-10, 2012, Austin, Texas. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 2015– 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208348 [26] Karen E. Fisher, Ann Peterson Bishop, Philip Fawcett, and Lassana Magassa. 2013. InfoMe@ teen design days: a multi-disciplinary, design thinking approach to community development. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information and Communications Technologies and Development: Notes-Volume 2 (ICTD’13), December 7-10, 2013, Cape Town, South Africa. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517899.2517914 [27] Batya Friedman and Daisy Yoo. 2017. Pause: A Multi-lifespan Design Mechanism. In Proceedings of the 2017 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17), May 6-11, 2017, Denver, Colorado. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 460–464. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026031 [28] B. Gaver, T. Dunne, and E. Pacenti. 1999. Design: Cultural Probes. interactions 6(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235 [29] Bill Gaver and Heather Martin. 2000. Alternatives: exploring information appliances through conceptual design proposals. In Proceedings of the 2000 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’00), April 1-6, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332433 [30] W. Gaver. 2001. Designing for ludic aspects of everyday life. Ercim News 47, 20–21. Available online: https://www.ercim.eu/publication/Ercim_News/enw47/gaver.html [31] William Gaver. 2011. Making spaces: how design workbooks work. In Proceedings of the 2011 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11), May 7-12, 2011, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1551–1560. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979169 [32] William Gaver, Ben Hooker, Anthony Dunne, and Paul Farrington. 2001. The Presence Project. Royal College of Art, London. [33] William W. Gaver, Andrew Boucher, Sarah Pennington, and Brendan Walker. 2004. Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. interactions 11(5), 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/1015530.1015555 [34] M. R. Ho, T. N. Smyth, M. Kam, and A. Dearden. 2009. Human-Computer Interaction for Development: The Past, Present, and Future. Information Technology and International Development (ITID) 5(4), 1-18. [35] H. Hutchinson, W. Mackay, B. Westerlund, B.B. Bederson, A. Druin, C. Plaisant, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, S. Conversy, H. Evans, H. Hansen, N. Roussel, and B. Eiderbäck. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In Proceedings of the 2013 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13), April 27-May 2, 2013, Paris, France. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642616 [36] L. Irani, J. Vertesi, P. Dourish, K. Philip, and R. E. Grinter. 2010. Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development. In Proceedings of the 2010 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10), April 10-15, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1311–1320. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753522 [37] Lilly C. Irani and M. Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: interrupting worker invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the 2013 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13), April 27-May 2, 2013, Paris, France. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470742 [38] Sirkka L Jarvenpaa and Willem Standaert. 2018. Digital Probes as Opening Possibilities of Generativity. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 19(10), 982–1000. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.17705/1jais.00516 [39] Jesper Kjeldskov, Martin Gibbs, Franks Vetere, Steve Howard, Sonja Pedell, Karen Mecoles, and Marcus Bunyan. 2004. Using cultural 63:20

probes to explore mediated intimacy. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 11(2), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v11i2.128 [40] Shaimaa Lazem and Susan Dray. 2018. Baraza!: human-computer interaction education in Africa. interactions 25(2), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178562 [41] Ruben Ndjibu, Naska Goagoses, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Anicia Peters, and Fannes Namhunya. 2018. A Cultured Interactive Installation to Probe Gender-Based Violence in Namibia: The Tales of Nali Technology Hut. In Jat D., Sieck J., Muyingi HN., Winschiers-Theophilus H., Peters A., Nggada S. (eds.). Digitisation of Culture: Namibian and International Perspectives. Springer, Singapore, 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7697-8_15 [42] Trevor Perrier, Nicola Dell, Brian DeRenzi, Richard Anderson, John Kinuthia, Jennifer Unger, and Grace John-Stewart. 2015. Engaging Pregnant Women in Kenya with a Hybrid Computer-Human SMS Communication System. In Proceedings of the 2015 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15), April 18-23, 2015, Seoul, South Korea. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1429–1438. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702124 [43] Ann Peterson Bishop and Karen E. Fisher. 2015. Using ICT design to learn about immigrant teens from Myanmar. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD’15), May 15-18, Singapore, Singapore. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1145/2737856.2737903 [44] Robert Racadio, Emma J. Rose, and Beth E. Kolko. 2014. Research at the margin: participatory design and community based participatory research. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts-Volume 2 (PDC’14), October 6-10, 2014, Windhoek, Namibia. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/2662155.2662188 [45] Yvonne Rogers and Gary Marsden. 2013. Does he take sugar?: Moving beyond the rhetoric of compassion. interactions 20(4), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/2486227.2486238 [46] Nithya Sambasivan, Nimmi Rangaswamy, Kentaro Toyama, and Bonnie Nardi. 2009. Encountering development ethnographically. interactions 16(6), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/1620693.1620698 [47] Regina Scheyvens. 2014. Development Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications, London. [48] Araba Sey and Peppino Ortoleva. 2014. All work and no play? Judging the uses of mobile phones in developing countries. Information Technologies & International Development 10(3), 1-17. [49] Alessandro Soro, Margot Brereton, Jennyfer Lawrence Taylor, Anita Lee Hong, and Paul Roe. 2016. Cross-cultural dialogical probes. In Proceedings of the First African Conference on Human Computer Interaction (AfriCHI’16), November 21-25, Nairobi, Kenya. ACM Inc., New York, NY,114–125. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998581.2998591 [50] Farhana Sultana. 2007. Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International E-journal for Critical Geographies 6(3), 374-385. [51] Alex S. Taylor. 2011. Out there. In Proceedings of the 2011 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11), May 7-12, 2011, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 685–694. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979042 [52] Jennyfer Lawrence Taylor, Alessandro Soro, Paul Roe, Anita Lee Hong, and Margot Brereton. 2017. Situational When: Designing for Time Across Cultures. In Proceedings of the 2017 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17), May 6-11, 2017, Denver, Colorado. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 6461–6474. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.302593 [53] Jayne Wallace, John McCarthy, Peter C. Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Making design probes work. In Proceedings of the 2013 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13), April 27-May 2, 2013, Paris, France. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 3441–3450. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466473 [54] Chelsea-Joy Wardle, Mitchell Green, Christine Wanjiru Mburu, and Melissa Densmore. 2018. Exploring Co-design with Breastfeeding Mothers. In Proceedings of the 2018 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18), April 21-26, 2018, Montreal, Canada. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174056 [55] Joseph Wherton, Paul Sugarhood, Rob Procter, Mark Rouncefield, Guy Dewsbury, Sue Hinder, and Trisha Greenhalgh. 2012. Designing assisted living technologies ‘in the wild’: preliminary experiences with cultural probe methodology. BMC medical research methodology 12(188), 1-13. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-188 [56] Heike Winschiers-Theophilus and Nicola J. Bidwell. 2013. Toward an Afro-Centric indigenous HCI paradigm. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 29(4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.765763 [57] Niall Winters and Kentaro Toyama. 2009. Human-computer interaction for development: mapping the terrain. Information Technologies & International Development 5(4), iii-viii. [58] Richmond Y. Wong, Deirdre K. Mulligan, Ellen Van Wyk, James Pierce, and John Chuang. 2017. Eliciting Values Reflections by Engaging Privacy Futures Using Design Workbooks. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (November 2017) 1(CSCW). ACM Inc., New York, NY, 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134746 [59] Susan Wyche, Nightingale Simiyu, and Martha E. Othieno. 2016. Mobile phones as amplifiers of social inequality among rural Kenyan women. ACM Trans. on Comput.-Hum. Interact (TOCHI) 23(3), no. 14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2911982 [60] Susan Wyche, Tawanna R. Dillahunt, Nightingale Simiyu, and Sharon Alaka. 2015. “If God gives me the chance I will design my own phone”: Exploring Mobile Phone Repair and Postcolonial Approaches to Design in Rural Kenya. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp’15), September 7-11, 2015, Osaka, Japan. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804249 [61] Susan P. Wyche and Laura L. Murphy. 2012. “Dead China-Make” Phones Off the Grid: Investigating and Designing for Mobile Phone Use in Rural Africa. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’12), June 11-15, 2012, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom. ACM Inc., New York, NY, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317985

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 63, Publication date: May 2020.