Exploring Smartphone Relationships through Roland Barthes using an Instrumented Pillow Technology Probe

Funk, Julie M.; Lakier, Matthew; O’Gorman, Marcel; Vogel, Daniel

doi:10.1145/3411764.3445548

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They can be communicated through text, images, videos, and audio and published by open access venues to encourage conversation among community members. They act as prompts for experimental and evocative ways of thinking, and for talking about research as a relationship that need not result in an object to be used (a product for circulation) or a process to be imitated (also a product for circulation) (Funk et al 2021) This is an open system. Endocrinology becomes exocrinology.…”

Section: N(o)vum Organummentioning

confidence: 99%

Autoethnographies of Mediation

FUNK¹,

SAYERS²

2022

The Bloomsbury Handbook to the Digital Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humanities research with computing is frequently associated with three approaches to technologies: building infrastructure, designing tools, and developing techniques. The infrastructural approach is common among some libraries and labs, for example, where "infrastructure" implies not only equipment, platforms, and collections but also where and how they are housed and supported (Canada Foundation for Innovation 2008, 7). Tools, meanwhile, are usually designed and crafted with infrastructure. They turn "this" into "that": from input to output, data to visualization, source code to browser content (Fuller 2005, 85). Techniques are then partly automated by tools. Aspects of a given process performed manually may become a procedure run by machines (Hayles 2010; Chun 2014). Although these three approaches are important to humanities computing, today they face numerous challenges, which are likely all too familiar to readers of this handbook.Among those challenges is technical expertise. Undergraduate and graduate students as well as humanities staff and faculty are rarely trained in areas such as computer programming and artificial intelligence (AI). Developing this expertise is no small task, especially when it is combined with academic studies of history, culture, language, or literature. Software appears in the meantime to grow and obsolesce rapidly. Just as someone finally learns the ins and outs of a platform, they may be asked-or required-to switch to another one. Computing in the humanities thus brings with it various justifiable concerns, if not anxieties, about the perceived obligation to "keep up" with the pace of the (mostly privatized) technology sector (Fitzpatrick 2012). Alongside this obligation comes the related challenge of maintenance. Infrastructure and tools demand routine attention, even when platforms are automagically updated. Maintenance is expensive, too. If researchers are fortunate to acquire grant funding to build infrastructure or design a tool, then they must also consider the near future of their projects. What will be the state of this humanities platform in ten years? Who will be using it, what will they want or need, who will steward it from here to there, and at what cost? Such issues are labyrinthine in that their trajectories are incredibly difficult to predict. They are also complex from the labor perspective, where precarity is now the default state for academics who are increasingly spread thin yet expected to do more and more with less and less.As we confront these challenges-one of us (Julie) a PhD student in science and technology studies, and the other (Jentery) an associate professor of English-we are experimenting with another approach to computing in the humanities, namely autoethnography, which is by no means new to the academy. Carolyn Ellis and Arthur P. Bochner provide a capacious but compelling definition of autoethnography, and we adopt it for the purposes of this chapter: "an autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of conscious...

show abstract

Section: N(o)vum Organummentioning

confidence: 99%

Autoethnographies of Mediation

FUNK¹,

SAYERS²

2022

The Bloomsbury Handbook to the Digital Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also see HCI and Interaction Design research engaging with emergent tensions related to smartphone use. In this line of work, design research endeavours often frame smartphone use as an individual behavioural problem [44,45,51] to be solved by suggesting "good" and "bad" smartphone behaviours through design [26,34,42,67]. Yet, little attention is given to design explorations that encourage alternative and critical viewpoints of how the use of digital technology (and smartphones) can play a role in future everyday life [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Provotyping Accountability: Exploring Smartphone Use in the Home through Design

Jensen,

Encinas,

Strengers

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to research concerns that smartphone usage negatively impacts intimate relationships, this paper presents a study exploring how design can encourage smartphone accountability in family home settings. We developed and deployed three provotypes with seven families via a Research through Design study intended to encourage reflections on ubiquitous and routinised smartphone usage. The provotypes progressively explore ways of making smartphone use visible by facilitating individualised accountability, competitive accountability, and collective accountability. We present insights into how these provotypes shaped family practices based on a qualitative study with 26 participants. We found that, by emphasising different forms of shared accountability, the provotypes reduced smartphone use, which in turn fostered family intimacy and togetherness, rooted in meanings of caring and sharing. Finally, we discuss our study's implications for how provotypes can help explore forms of accountability in practices involving sustainable technology use within the home. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in interaction design; Field studies; Smartphones.

show abstract