Volume 18, No. 2, June 2008
Interaction
Design and International Development: A New Agenda?
Andrew
M. Dearden
Communication and Computing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University
Human(e) development is necessarily an interdisciplinary endeavour. The complexity of human society and of natural systems, make it impossible to identify, understand and achieve desirable outcomes without attention to multiple perspectives and diverse stakeholders. Indeed the language of the previous sentence begs multiple questions of the values considered in assessing outcomes (what Sen, 1999 refers to as the informational base for evaluation) and what (or whose) conception of desirability should be applied. From the perspective of the design disciplines, development is an archetype of “wicked” problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973).
IFIP
Working Group 9.4 (Social Implications of Computers in Developing
Countries) has worked for many years to understand the complex interplay
between information and communication technology (ICT) and development. WG
9.4, located within IFIP Technical Committee 9 (Relationship between
Computers and Society), is primarily concerned with the ways in which the
spread of computational technologies leads to and enables changes in
social relations and outcomes, framing questions about the relations
between technology and people at the social level. This is reflected in
the focus of its working groups (e.g. Social Accountability, Social
Implications of Artificial Intelligence, Women and Information Technology
etc.). A key observation about computers (and other information and
communication technologies - ICTs) in developing countries, is that the
majority of these technologies have been designed in, and for, the
developed world. Increasingly, researchers in the development informatics
field are raising the question of whether alternative forms and practices
around information and communication technologies might contribute
positively to development outcomes.
IFIP
Technical Committee 13 (IFIP TC13) is concerned with all aspects of the
field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI). HCI also deals with the
interplay between people and computers, but historically, it has grown
from an initial interest in the interactions between an individual person
(commonly referred to as ‘the user’) and a computer system. Thus,
whilst TC 9 is often concerned with human questions at the social level,
TC13 is often concerned with human questions at the individual level.
Accounts of the early days of Human Computer Interaction as a field of
study emphasize the dialogue between computer science and psychology, in
particular. Over time, this concern has broadened to consider many other
perspectives and disciplines and HCI in the 21st Century includes
researchers with backgrounds not only in computing and psychology, but
also engineering disciplines, social sciences, and increasingly the more
established design disciplines such as architecture, industrial design,
graphic and media design.
A
notable feature of HCI is that the discipline is both a scientific
discipline studying the phenomena of people and computers interacting, but
also HCI is strongly oriented towards design, finding ways and means to
envision and develop ‘better’ systems. This focus is apparent in the
titles of some of the working groups in TC 13, such as: Methodology for
User Centered Design; User Interface Engineering; Human Error, Safety and
System Development; Human-Work Interaction Design. The facets of HCI that
are concerned with envisioning and realising new possibilities, are
commonly collected under the heading ‘Interaction Design’. A point of
clarification may be appropriate here. Interaction design should not be
confused with the narrower idea that some people might hold of
User-Interface Design, or even ‘screen design’. Interaction design
does not focus (primarily) on the surface appearance of a system, but on
the deep structures and opportunities for meaning making in the form of
technology. Some primary questions for Interaction Designers are:
-
How does it support their activities and intentions?
-
How does this system fit into its wider environment and context?
-
How can this system respond to its users’ objectives and practices, rather than imposing regulation and constraint?
-
How can it provide flexibility, but avoid complexity?
To this list of questions, a new one is now increasingly being asked in the Interaction Design community:
-
How can new systems (software, hardware, networks, and organisational systems) be designed so that they can contribute positively to international development?
The
question is arising in many forms and many forums. Back in 2003,
Interactions magazine (the bi-monthly magazine of the ACM’s special
interest group in Computer Human Interaction) published a special issue on
HCI in the developing world (Dray, Siegel, Kotze, 2003). More recently, at
major HCI conferences in 2007 and 2008, large workshops were held at which
interaction designers met to share their ideas, their findings, and to
begin to explore the issues surrounding their work (Dearden et al. 2007,
Walker et al., 2007, Thomas et al. 2008). These discussions have also
resulted in a decision by IFIP TC13 to establish a special interest group
in Interaction Design and International Development (IDID). Currently this
group is using a google group to organise and collaborate[i].
In
the rest of this paper, I shall examine the drivers that have given rise
to this new initiative, introduce some of the work that has been reported
in these workshops, outline some of the discussions among the participants
in the special interest group, and examine the aims of the new group and
how they relate to existing work in development informatics.
Background
Drivers
The
relatively recent emergence of international development as a recognisable
concern for mainstream interaction design may be attributable to the
increasing diffusion of interactive technologies in the developing world.
One particularly interesting change in recent years has been the rapid
diffusion of mobile phones down to the level of families or individuals. A
huge number of people now have access to fully functional computing
devices, that have more processing power than the early personal
computers, can communicate with other such devices, and many of which can
also be used to capture and exchange images. According to Bishop[ii],
80% of the world’s population now lives in
range of a mobile phone network, and the number of phones per 100 people
in developing countries is rising rapidly. Although these raw statistics
mask huge disparities within countries, and important social issues
surrounding the ownership and control over mobile phones (see, e.g.
Wakunuma, 2007), for concerned interaction designers the very
pervasiveness of this technology represents an opportunity to contribute
creative ideas and interventions.
The
increasing awareness of this diffusion of (particularly mobile)
interactive devices is also influencing technology research funding bodies
in the rich nations. For example, in 2006 the UK Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council provided £1.6m of funding for a group of
interdisciplinary research projects under the title ‘Bridging
the Global Digital Divide’. In the
Additionally,
the commercial ICT sector (both hardware and service providers) has an
interest in stimulating uptake of technology, and so wants to identify and
realise new ways in which people can find benefits by using their products
and services.
Finally,
as the emerging economies such as India, China and South Africa become
powerful players in the global ICT market, research and teaching
institutions in these countries are responding to the needs that they see
around them, and are seeking to develop interaction design expertise
relevant to their own settings.
The
combination of these factors has resulted in a growing group of
interaction designers exploring new ideas for the form, structure and uses
of ICT in development contexts.
A
Designerly Approach
The
emerging dialogues amongst interaction designers and between interaction
designers and development experts may need some decoding for those who are
not familiar with designers. The design disciplines are culturally
different from the economic and social science disciplines that
predominate in development studies. Designers approach problems in ways
that may be surprising to people from other disciplines. One key design
skill is generating and exploring a wide variety of possible responses to
any situation. This exploration and experimentation often involves trying
out things that do not work, but for a designer, this is a step to
success, not a waste or a failure. As Scott Adams puts it cartoon
“Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.” At the CHI 2007
workshop in San Jose, Kentaro Toyoma (head of Microsoft’s Emerging
Markets Research Group) used the metaphor of a (hidden) funnel to
represent the space of design possibility. On the left of this diagram
(Figure 1), designers explore many ideas, but only a small number end up
being translated into successful solutions. But until we have explored the
options, we don’t know which ones are going to work. Exploration is the
designers’ specialism.
Figure 1: Designing as a Funnel
Because
of the importance of exploration, when designers present ideas to each
other, they may apply different values to other disciplines. Pablo Picasso
said “Good artists copy, great artists steal”, and this mantra has
been enthusiastically adopted by designers (Moll, 2003). Designers rely on
acquiring ideas and adapting concepts that they have encountered
elsewhere. Designers are always interested in sharing ideas, even if those
ideas were not immediately successful in the context where they were
previously used. The germ of the idea, or an analogy developed from it,
can still be useful in a different setting. Economic measures of
innovation capacity place a high weighting on the variety of external
connections that a district, region or country has access to. Cross
pollination of ideas is crucial to supporting innovation.
Some
Illustrative Examples
In
the discussions to date a range of examples of novel interaction designs
have been presented. In this section, I shall mention just a small sample
of these for the purpose of illustration.
As
noted above, the potential uses of mobile phones have attracted much
attention. Kam et al (2007, 2008) have explored how educational games on
multimedia capable mobile phones can be successfully used to support
language learning. They also abstract the PACE framework as a guide for
developing new interactive learning activities. Jones et al (2008) in the Storybank
project have applied mobile phones to support a community in creating
and sharing of digital stories, working with a community radio project in
a rural area of
The
combination of traditional and digital technologies is also apparent in
the ChikanCAD
project described by Sharma (2007). Here, the local technology was Chikan
embroidery, which is traditionally conducted by printing designs onto the
cloth using wooden printing blocks, before starting the stitching. Using
computer aided design and digital printing systems, it is possible to
generate new designs, and transfer them to fabric more quickly than with
the traditional wooden block. The Datamation foundation has been applying
the software to support local embroiderers in improving their livelihoods
by being able to respond to changing market demands.
As
well as IT solutions intended to deliver immediate benefits in the
developing world, a number of systems have been discussed that seek to
support dialogue between groups in developing and developed regions of the
world. For example the DIVO project
involved connections and learning between school-girls in
Some
Key Issues
Much
of the time, in the four workshops to date, has been spent exploring
questions and challenges that interaction designers have experienced in
managing and conducting their work. Below, I briefly outline some of these
discussions.
Culturally appropriate(d) design methods
Over
the years, interaction design has built up a canon of methods that are
used in engaging with potential users of technology, in the initial phases
of situation analysis, in generating design ideas and in evaluating
prototypes or finished systems. However, interaction designers have
discovered that these methods often embed cultural assumptions about the
how potential users will respond to the designer. Winschiers (2006) argues
that design methods need to be adapted for the particular cultural
setting. For example, interaction designers derive great value from
observing and discussing ideas with end users directly, without their
managers being present. However, in some cultural settings, such
interchanges may be stifled because people are reluctant to offer their
opinions without first having their superior’s approval (Puri, Byrne,
Nhamphosesa & Quraishi, 2004). Chavan (2005) describes a usability
evaluation method used in India which draws on a Bollywood film plot to
motivate user engagement. Building up a broader repertoire of design
methods that are locally adapted (and adaptable) may be an important area
for future research.
Access
to the research field
A
key question for an interaction designer wanting to engage in
international development is how they develop links to the field.
Participants commonly agreed that effective projects require local
partnerships, either with government, local institutions or local
development NGOs. In particular, technology designers from outside are
unlikely to be aware of the subtle power relationships that pervade any
community, and local partners may help to navigate these complex spaces.
Schwartzman & Parikh (2007) presented a set of heuristics for thinking
about how an interaction design research project might engage with
development.
At
the most recent workshop (Thomas et al., 2008), one discussion sought to
identify a set of questions that should be asked before commencing a
research project in Interaction Design for development. The questions
suggested ranged from personal reflections such as ‘How qualified are
you?’ and ‘Why are you doing your research in this place, and not in
your own back yard?’; pragmatic questions about the relationships with
local development partners like ‘who is your contact or project
champion, and how are you going to communicate?’ and ‘what happens if
your project champion leaves the area?’; through to questions about
relations with research funders, such as “do you know the ‘wriggle
room’ in your original project proposal, so that you can adapt your work
to the local needs you discover?”. An outstanding task for the IDID
network will be to discuss and explore these questions further to guide
their work. Of course a critical question that all researchers and
designers need to ask in this space “What do we mean by development?”
Development
and research
A
key issue for many participants in the IDID network is the tension between
their research agendas and their development objectives. The conception of
research in ICT and in interaction design is shaped by particular funding
sources, career structures, and opportunities to publish, that are
interested in ‘original’ concepts and findings. At the very least,
researchers involved in IDID are under pressure to publish (or perish).
This immediately creates a conflict in any IDID research project, as the
researcher seeks to balance effort making practical contributions on the
ground, against spending time publishing material (perhaps prematurely) in
‘the right places’ to advance their career and satisfy their funders.
This conflict of priorities has been a recurring theme in discussions in
the network, and is perhaps best addressed by establishing and supporting
high quality peer-reviewed conferences and journals that specialize in
relevant themes.
Concepts
of participation
A
key idea in interaction design is user participation in designing.
However, the concept of user participation as commonly applied in
interaction design is quite a weak one. Dearden & Rizvi (forthcoming)
argue that the typical mode of participation can be characterised as what
Oakley (1991) call ‘participation as contribution’, i.e. the user is
invited to contribute to a project, but the goals of that project have
been defined by others, and the timing and style of the participation are
under external control. Heeks (1999) draws attention to the critiques and
abuses of ‘participation’ in the development literature. A more
critical understanding of the nature of participation, and how it related
to development outcomes, could be an important goal of conversations
between IFIP WG 9.4 and the IDID community.
A
Note of Caution
For
those with a critical awareness of the history of development, this new
wave of interest in how technologies can be applied to support development
ends, holds risks of: unintended consequences from well-meaning intentions
implemented driving naïve interventions; of development funds being
misdirected due to the hype surrounding particular technical idea; or of
development agendas being appropriated to service powerful interest
groups.
An
important aspect of the work of the IDID special interest group will be to
draw upon the past experience and learning of people involved in
development studies, and particularly those in IFIP WG 9.4 who have
examined the impact of ICT in developing countries, to support interaction
designers in learning to translate positive intentions into practical
development outcomes. With this in mind, we hope that members of IFIP WG
9.4 and other readers of this newsletter will engage positively with the
growing community of interaction designers who hope that they can deploy
their skills in the interests of development.
References
Chavan,
A. L. (2005). Another Culture, Another Method. HCI 2005 Conference
Proceedings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Dearden,
A. & Rizvi, H. (Forthcoming). Participatory IT Design and
Participatory Development: A comparative review. To be presented at PDC
2008, Bloomington, Indiana, September 30-October 4, 2008.
Dearden,
A., Light, A., Dray, S., Thomas, J., Best, M., Buckhalter, C., Greenblatt,
D., Krishnan, G. & Sambasivan, N. (2007). User centered design and
international development. In CHI ‘07 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, CA, USA, April 28-May 03, 2007).
CHI ‘07. ACM, New York, NY, pp. 2825-2828. See http://mikeb.inta.gatech.edu/UCDandIDWorkshop/
Dray,
S., Siegel, D. & Kotze, P. (2003). Winds of Change. Special issue of
Interactions, Vol X, Issue 2.
Heeks,
R. (1999). The Tyranny of Participation in Information Systems: Learning
from Development Projects. Working paper no. 4 in Development Informatics
series,
Jones,
M., Harwood, W., Buchanan, G., Frohlich, D., Rachovides, D., Lalmas, M.
& Frank, M (2008). Narrowcast yourself: Designing for Community
Storytelling in a Rural Indian Context. Proceedings of ACM Conference on
Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '08),
Kam,
M., Agarwal, A., Kumar, A., Lal, S., Mathur, A., Tewari, A. & Canny,
J. (2008). Designing E-Learning Games for Rural Children in
Kam,
M., Ramachandran, D., Devanathan, V., Tewari, A. & Canny, J. (2007).
Localized Iterative Design for Language Learning in Underdeveloped
Regions: The PACE Framework. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ‘07), San Jose, California, April 28-May 3, 2007.
Moll,
C. (2003). Good Designers Copy, Great Designers Steal, http://www.sitepoint.com/article/copy-great-designers-steal
Oakley,
P. (1991). Projects with People. International Labour Organisation,
Geneva.
Parikh,
T. S., Javid, P., Sasikumar, K., Ghosh, K. & Toyama, K. (2006).
Mobile Phones and Paper Documents; Evaluating a New Approach for
Capturing Microfinance Data in Rural India. In Proceedings of CHI 2006,
ACM Press, pp. 551-560.
Puri,
S., Byrne, E., Nhampossa, J. & Quraishi, Z. (2004). Contextuality of
participation in IS design: A developing country perspective. Proceedings
of PDC 2004, Toronto, Canada, July 27-31, 2004.
Rittel,
H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,
Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 155-169, Elsevier,
Schwartzman,
Y. & Parikh, T. S. (2007). Establishing Relationships For Designing
Rural Information Systems. Presented at ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI ‘07) workshop,
Sen,
A. (1999). Development as Freedom,
Sharma,
C. (2007). Background Report on the “Chikankari” Computer-Aided Design
(CAD)
software. Presented at ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ‘07) workshop,
Thomas,
J., Dearden, A., Dray, S., Light, A., Best, M., Arkin, N., Maunder, A.,
Kam, M., Chetty, M., Sambasivan, N., Buckhalter, C. & Krishnan, G.
(2008). HCI for community and international development. In CHI '08
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Florence, Italy,
April 5-10, 2008). CHI ‘08. ACM, New York, NY, pp. 3909-3912. See http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~mikeb/HCI4CID/
Wakunuma,
K. J. (2007). Mobiles re-inforce unequal gender relations in
Winschiers,
H. (2006). The Challenges of Participatory Design in an Intercultural
Context: Designing for Usability in Namibia. Proceedings of PDC 2006, Vol
II, pp. 73-76.
[i] See http://groups.google.com/hci4d for details.