Designing for Discomfort

Abstract

A focus of human-computer interaction work and a central principle of user experience is that design should avoid discomfort and aim to craft positive experiences for individuals. However, for contexts in which an uncomfortable reaction is intended, instrumental, or indeed inevitable, we recognize that it is inappropriate to design for a positive or "feel good" experience. Herein we describe an investigation into the use of interactive technologies to support transformative learning, a process through which individuals engage with feelings of discomfort. The project is grounded by work with graduate students enrolled in a course that employed decolonizing pedagogies. Throughout the course students responded to uncomfortable, problematic scenarios through interactive tools. We present our analysis of students' learning experiences, their interactions with technologies and their reflections on the effectiveness of these engagements in terms of supporting opportunities for critical reflection, a crucial stage of the transformative learning process.

“We need to do more... I need to do more”: Augmenting Digital Media Consumption via Critical Reflection to Increase Compassion and Promote Prosocial Attitudes and Behaviors

“…Other reflection coding processes like Powell's [101] and Sparks-Langer's [117] suffer from limitations noted in prior works [62], while Kember's method [62] is designed more for formal learning settings. Our work uses Mezirow's reflection theory (previously used in various HCI research, e.g., [11,50,134]) and Wong et al's coding process [136] since they are the most appropriate given our work's context (i.e., reflection on digital content).…”

“…Critical reflection can also be fostered through a shared sense of community. Halbert and Nathan [50] investigated how group-based critical reflection could be supported by engaging with feelings of discomfort, and among other suggestions, proposed that such technologies should foster a shared identity and respectful dialogue, prioritize the voices and experiences of context-specific marginalized users, and support pluralism. Citing tools built by Kriplean et al like ConsiderIt [67] and Reflect [68], the importance of interfaces that encourages the finding of common ground was also discussed [50].…”

“…Halbert and Nathan [50] investigated how group-based critical reflection could be supported by engaging with feelings of discomfort, and among other suggestions, proposed that such technologies should foster a shared identity and respectful dialogue, prioritize the voices and experiences of context-specific marginalized users, and support pluralism. Citing tools built by Kriplean et al like ConsiderIt [67] and Reflect [68], the importance of interfaces that encourages the finding of common ground was also discussed [50]. Investigating social-emotional learning contexts, Slovak et al [116] proposed technological characteristics for supporting transformative reflection, including a balance of how real technologically-simulated situations are between being conducive to learning without being overly emotional, and having the capabilities to support explicit, social and personal practicum components.…”

Participation & (Re)settlement : envisioning mobile services with young forced migrants

“…Brown and Gemeinboeck, 2017;McNally, Mauriello, et al, 2017;Guldberg et al, 2010), homeless (Hardy et al, 2016), and elderly population groups (Jorge, 2001). Also, it is relevant in HCI research in intersectional HCI (Schlesinger et al, 2017), healthcare (Peters et al, 2018;Wolters et al, 2017;French et al, 2016), ethical reflections (Gram-Hansen and Ryberg, 2016;Durrant and Kirk, 2018), and creation of learning spaces (Halbert and Nathan, 2015), among others.…”

“…Gram-Hansen and Ryberg, 2016 emphasised the importance of 'safe contexts' to empower and support participants' sharing of ideas and reflections during/after the activities. Halbert and Nathan, 2015 in their study of technological practices supporting engagement in distressing situations highlighted that the notion of 'safe space' differs from person to person. The authors defined 'safe spaces' as learning environments where trust and support are fostered without silencing feelings of discomfort and voices of dissent 'towards more palatable forms of discourse.'…”