Troubling Collaboration: Matters of Care for Visualization Design Study

Abstract

A common research process in visualization is for visualization researchers to collaborate with domain experts to solve particular applied data problems. While there is existing guidance and expertise around how to structure collaborations to strengthen research contributions, there is comparatively little guidance on how to navigate the implications of, and power produced through the socio-technical entanglements of collaborations. In this paper, we qualitatively analyze reflective interviews of past participants of collaborations from multiple perspectives: visualization graduate students, visualization professors, and domain collaborators. We juxtapose the perspectives of these individuals, revealing tensions about the tools that are built and the relationships that are formed — a complex web of competing motivations. Through the lens of matters of care, we interpret this web, concluding with considerations that both trouble and necessitate reformation of current patterns around collaborative work in visualization design studies to promote more equitable, useful, and care-ful outcomes.

Here’s what you need to know about my data: Exploring Expert Knowledge’s Role in Data Analysis.

“…Consequently, we join previous works [59,70,71] in calling for rethinking how we design and develop visualization interfaces, especially when the goal is real-world adoption. Instead of developing yet-another-tool, we argue for meeting analysts where they are at in their analysis workflows.…”

“…Lin asked the prepared questions and guided the conversation, while Lisnic observed the conversation, took notes, and followed up with additional questions. We used a two-to-one approach because we previously found it helpful in ensuring that interviews remained on track, while also lessening the burden of note-taking on the primary interviewer [59].…”

“Two Heads are Better than One”: Pair-Interviews for Visualization

“…Pair-interviews are interviews conducted by two people, rather than one, with the responsibilities of planning, conducting, and analyzing the interviews strategically divided between two complementary roles: a driver and a navigator. By reflecting across the use of pair-interviews within four separate visualization studies [1,13,15, 21] -Akbaba was involved in two of the studies, and Meyer in all four -we find that the explicit enactment of these roles reduced the logistical and emotional burdens of conducting an interview, increased the engagement with the interviewee, and improved the experience of interview analysis through co-reflection. As a method that focuses on the mechanics of asking questions and directing discussions during an interview, pair-interviewing complements other interview methods used by visualization researchers that instead focus on the interview questions [9], the interview context [5,10], data analysis during the interview [3,16], or participant interactions with technologies [19].…”

“…To understand the role of visualizations in these contexts, researchers employ a host of qualitative methods, one of which is the interview. Interviews are employed in visualization studies in a variety of ways, such as a core method in interview studies [1,2,12]; as an avenue to inform the design specifications of novel visualization techniques [6]; and, as a method to evaluate and refine visualizations [4,22].…”

“…These recommendations center on when to consider making use of a pair-interview, how to distribute interview responsibilities between a pair of interviewers, and how to make use of the pair to facilitate rich and productive analysis. In addition to our main contribution, we also provide a complementary primer as a supplemental website that covers the procedural aspects of conducting pair-interviews 1 . We advocate for the use of pair-interviews in visualization research based on our successes and joys in using the technique across a diverse set of interviewers and contexts.…”