Reflection in action

Is a good design process a reflective practice? Reflection in action is not only what design practioners and others do in a design process (Schön, The Reflective Practitioner). Csikszentmihalyi and Halton (1981) describe "the self in the context of cultivation", a process of interpretation and self-control motivated by goals. This is a "self-corrective process". Thus, a similar approach to reflection-in-action is already happening in everyday activities (ibid). Thus, this not necessarily unique for a work situation, only applied in a different context and more articulated? ...

Some work practices are very dependent on practice-based knowledge, such as in healtcare. Staff may face very different situations. Here reflection, as well as critical thinking, may support people to handle these and also become more skilfull in what they do (Price, 2003) .

I find it very interesting to understand what it is that we are refelcting on in a design process and why.... Designers are trained to "questions the question" but how is it for other professionals and others that are engaged in design processes? How can we make the most of different skills and experiences in a reflective design process?


To be continued...

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge University Press.

Price, A (2003). "Encouraging reflection and critical thinking in practice". Nursing Standard 18 (47). 

Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). Basic Books.

Designing interactions

The desktop metaphor is a way of interacting that once upon a time was transferred from how publishers were working with documents.  A tangible practice informing a digital practice, not intented only for publishers. This and other things is presented in Designing interactions (either as video or text):

http://www.designinginteractions.com/download

I believe that there will be much more that we can sucessfully transfer from practices. There are digital properties that we are missing in the physical world.... and vice versa.

I have previously been working with  how to enable digtial properties for more physical paper-based practices. A few years ago we studied the Gothenburg film festival, and investigated how to keep their paper-based practice  - yet giving it some digital properties.  This was then investigated with the Pin&Play technology, that today has been taken much further by Nocholas Villar among others.

Taking part of research

After some studies and a workshop with people that have disability in their hands and arms, and designers, I hope that to find more ways of engaging both users and designers in reserach.

This is a nice initiative to take inspiration from:

http://www.hso.se/intressepolitik/forskning/Projektet-Fran-forskningsobjekt-till-medaktor1/

The addicted society - What is your relation to your mobile phone?

Technology changes our relation to each other. It adds some things, and removes other things - and changes our meeting points. Nil Eyal wrote in TechCrunch how technology is making meetings worse. I think he here refers to business meetings, but this is thoughtful for any kind of meeting I would say;-)

"It seems that whenever people meet in person these days, they do so while separating their attention between the people in the room and the devices in their hands. Somehow, it has become socially acceptable to digitally masturbate in each other’s company. You might say, “but I’m taking notes or responding to an important request!” No you’re not, you are digitally dicking around."

"Most corrosive however, is the fact that less attention means worse outcomes. When people use their devices during meetings, even just for a quick sec, they eventually rejoin the conversation, aware that they may have missed something while they were mentally away. They fear revealing that they were not paying attention and tend to shut down. Thus, otherwise valid concerns and bright ideas are never discussed. Their lack of participation only serves to make the meeting less productive, less interesting, and more boring. Conveniently, to escape the discomfort of being not only bored, but also increasingly paranoid, more device usage ensues and the cycle continues."

Reblogged from:

Nil Eyal: Tech Is Making Meetings Worse, It’s Time For Digital Hat Racks, Tech Crunch, 2012-12-09, (http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/digital-hat-racks/) 

Dominant perspectives as evolved social constructions

Why do we think the way we do?

“When any group within a large, complex civilisation significantly dominates other groups for hundreds of years, the ways of the dominant group (its epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies), not only become the dominant ways of that civilisation, but also these ways become so deeply embedded that they typically are seen as ‘natural’ or appropriate norms rather than as historically evolved social constructions.” (Scheurich & Young, 1997: 7 quoted by Chilisa, 2011: 45).

 Read more at:

http://psychsoma.co.za/qualitative_inquiry_growt/third-space-methodologies/

The craft of interaction design and service design

Interesting how the craft of website wireframing or app wireframing appears to have much in common with service blueprint and customer journeys. It's an art to make it work well, and there is not one perfect solution that fits all cases?

http://maquinastudio.com/blog/2009/08/the-fine-art-of-wireframing/

Reflective and enabling design

Just read a nice article discussing the importance of understanding what you design for and why. Even if the goal is to make people happier, healtier etc it is important to acknowledge the difference of supporting people by providing different options that fit their needs, as opposed to locking them into a solution that someone else decided to be "the" best (only) alternative.

Design can be enablers of more sustainable practices and also support reflective behaviour. By providing things that make people reflect on for example their use of water or garbage, they can start to see things and realize how their actions affect for example the overall waste care in their country. Then they may also change their behaviour, because they desire to do so, not because they are forced to. A bit like the Hans Rosling effect :-) When we get new perspectives that relate ourselves to a global world, we learn something about ourselves and we start to reflect. Then we can start to act. 

This suggests the importance of separating beetween what is designed and the designers motivation behind the design. Even if the designer wants to save the world, the users have to get different enablers and alternatives and then decide what to do. At least if there is a humanistic perspective in the design? Supporting people to make sustainable choises (by providing such choices)  is very different from forcing people into a specific solution. Moreover, sustanability is about a longlasting perspective, thus it must come from a human desire and motivation.

http://www.rioleo.org/a-worrying-trend-in-behavior-change-in-human-computer-interaction.php