skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3174038acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

More Than a Show: Using Personalized Immersive Theater to Educate and Engage the Public in Technology Ethics

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Devising strategies to engage the public in discussions around the design and development of technology is critical to building a future that works for everyone. This paper presents a novel case study, an immersive theater experience, "Quantified Self," that combines aspects of design fiction and user enactments to construct a public engagement opportunity about technology ethics. Our audience supplied their social data (Facebook, Twitter...) and received a personalized experience where they interacted with a narrative and technology exhibits. We used a design model targeting goals of engagement, education, and discussion. Here we overview the design and production of Quantified Self and report on the results (240 participants over 6 performances) and findings from audience surveys (n=179/240) and cast/crew interviews (n=15/22). We found our approach attracted a wide audience interested in different elements of the show. Affordances and challenges of our model are discussed in detail.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Annie I. Anton, Julia B. Earp, and Jessica D. Young. 2010. How internet users' privacy concerns have evolved since 2002. IEEE Security & Privacy 8, 1 (2010). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5403147/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Catherine Ashcraft, Brad McLain, and Elizabeth Eger. Women in Tech: The Facts (2015--16 Update). Technical Report. National Center for Women and Information Technology. https://www.ncwit.org/resources/ women-tech-facts-2015--16-updateGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24, 1 (March 2013), 11--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Solon Barocas and Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. On notice: The trouble with Notice and Consent. In Proceedings of the Engaging Data Forum: The First International Forum on the Application and Management of Personal Electronic Information. http: //papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567409Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Rebecca Bates, Judy Goldsmith, Rosalyn Berne, Valerie Summet, and Nanette Veilleux. 2012. Science Fiction in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 161--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Igor Bilogrevic and Martin Ortlieb. 2016. "If You Put All The Pieces Together...": Attitudes Towards Data Combination and Sharing Across Services and Companies. ACM Press, 5215--5227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Julian Bleecker. 2009. Design Fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction. Near Future Laboratory 29 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mark Blythe. 2014. Research Through Design Fiction: Narrative in Real and Imaginary Abstracts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 703--712. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Rainer Bohme and Stefan Kopsell. 2010. Trained to Accept?: A Field Experiment on Consent Dialogs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2403--2406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam Kalai. 2016. Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings. arXiv:1607.06520 {cs, stat} (July 2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06520 arXiv: 1607.06520.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. danah boyd and Kate Crawford. 2012. CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATA: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society 15, 5 (June 2012), 662--679.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Ben Brantley. 2011. 'Sleep No More' Is a 'Macbeth' in a Hotel - Review. The New York Times (April 2011). https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/theater/reviews/ sleep-no-more-is-a-macbeth-in-a-hotel-review.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. David Brin. 2005. The self-preventing prophecy. Or, how a dose of nightmare can help tame tomorrow's perils. On nineteen eighty-four. Orwell and our future (2005), 222--230.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Nicholas Confessore and Danny Hakim. 2017. Data Firm Says 'Secret Sauce' Aided Trump; Many Scoff. The New York Times (March 2017). https://www.nytimes. com/2017/03/06/us/politics/cambridge-analytica.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. K. Crawford. 2016. Can an Algorithm be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics. Science, Technology & Human Values 41, 1 (jan 2016), 77--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Nicholas S. Dalton, Rebecca Moreau, and Ross K. Adams. 2016. Resistance is Fertile: Design Fictions in Dystopian Worlds. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 365--374. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Paul Dourish and Genevieve Bell. 2014. "Resistance is futile": reading science fiction alongside ubiquitous computing. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 4 (April 2014), 769--778. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mostafa El-Bermawy. 2016. Your Filter Bubble is Destroying Democracy. WIRED (Nov. 2016). https://www.wired.com/2016/11/ filter-bubble-destroying-democracy/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Chris Elsden, David Chatting, Abigail C. Durrant, Andrew Garbett, Bettina Nissen, John Vines, and David S. Kirk. 2017. On Speculative Enactments. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5386--5399. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Chris Elsden, Bettina Nissen, Andrew Garbett, David Chatting, David Kirk, and John Vines. 2016. Metadating: Exploring the Romance and Future of Personal Data. ACM Press, 685--698. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Tristan Harris. 2016. How Technology is Hijacking Your Mind - from a Former Insider. (May 2016). https://journal.thriveglobal.com/ how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-sGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Luke Hutton and Tristan Henderson. 2015. " I didn't sign up for this!": Informed consent in social network research. In Proceedings of the 9th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM). https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/ 10023/6691Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. David Kirby. 2010. The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular Films in Generating Real-world Technological Development. Social Studies of Science 40, 1 (Feb. 2010), 41--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. David A Kirby. 2011. Lab coats in Hollywood: Science, scientists, and cinema. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeff Larson Lauren Julia Angwin Kirchner, Surya Mattu. 2016. Machine Bias: There's Software Used Across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And it's Biased Against Blacks. (May 2016). https://www.propublica.org/article/ machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Joshua A. Kroll, Joanna Huey, Solon Barocas, Edward W. Felten, Joel R. Reidenberg, David G. Robinson, and Harlan Yu. 2016. Accountable Algorithms. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2765268. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2765268Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jamiles Lartey. 2016. Predictive policing practices labeled as 'flawed' by civil rights coalition. The Guardian (Aug. 2016). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/31/ predictive-policing-civil-rights-coalition-acluGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton. 2015. Back to the Future: 10 Years of Design Fiction. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference (British HCI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 210--211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Joseph Lindley, Dhruv Sharma, and Robert Potts. 2014. Anticipatory Ethnography: Design fiction as an input to design ethnography. In Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2014. Wiley Online Library, 237--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Conor Linehan, Ben J. Kirman, Stuart Reeves, Mark A. Blythe, Joshua G. Tanenbaum, Audrey Desjardins, and Ron Wakkary. 2014. Alternate Endings: Using Fiction to Explore Design Futures. In CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 45--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ewa Luger, Stuart Moran, and Tom Rodden. 2013. Consent for All: Revealing the Hidden Complexity of Terms and Conditions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2687--2696. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Jennifer Mankoff, Jennifer A. Rode, and Haakon Faste. 2013. Looking Past Yesterday's Tomorrow: Using Futures Studies Methods to Extend the Research Horizon. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1629--1638. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Aaron Marcus. 2006. CHI at the Movies and on Tv. interactions 13, 3 (May 2006), 54--ff. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Aaron Marcus. 2013. The History of the Future: Sci-fi Movies and HCI. interactions 20, 4 (July 2013), 64--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Aaron Marcus. 2015. The Past 100 Years of the Future: HCI and User-experience Design in Science-fiction Movies and Television. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2015 Courses (SA '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15:1--15:26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Aleecia McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2010. Beliefs and Behaviors: Internet Users' Understanding of Behavioral Advertising. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1989092. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1989092Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Omar Mubin, Mohammad Obaid, Wolmet Barendregt, Simeon Simoff, and Morten Fjeld. 2015. Science Fiction and the Reality of HCI: Inspirations, Achievements or a Mismatch. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (OzCHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 670--672. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Jeff Nisker, Douglas K. Martin, Robyn Bluhm, and Abdallah S. Daar. 2006. Theatre as a public engagement tool for health-policy development. Health Policy 78, 2--3 (Oct. 2006), 258--271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. William Odom, John Zimmerman, Scott Davidoff, Jodi Forlizzi, Anind K. Dey, and Min Kyung Lee. 2012. A Fieldwork of the Future with User Enactments. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 338--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Paul Ohm. 2010. Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA law review 57 (2010), 1701. http: //papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Frank Pasquale. 2015. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Michael Skirpan, Jacqueline Cameron, and Tom Yeh. 2018. Quantified Self: An Interdisciplinary Immersive Theater Project Supporting a Collaborative Learning Environment for CS Ethics. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (2018). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. M. Skirpan and T. Yeh. 2017. Designing a Moral Compass for the Future of Computer Vision Using Speculative Analysis. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). 1368--1377.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Olivia Solon. 2017. 'This oversteps a boundary': teenagers perturbed by Facebook surveillance. The Guardian (May 2017). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/02/ facebook-surveillance-tech-ethicsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Bruce Sterling. 2009. Design Fiction. Interactions 16, 3 (May 2009), 20--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery. Queue 11.3 (2013), 10. http: //dataprivacylab.org/projects/onlineads/1071--1.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Joshua Tanenbaum. 2014. Design Fictional Interactions: Why HCI Should Care About Stories. interactions 21, 5 (Sept. 2014), 22--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Eran Toch, Yang Wang, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2012. Personalization and privacy: a survey of privacy risks and remedies in personalization-based systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 1--2 (April 2012), 203--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Zeynep Tufekci. 2015. Algorithmic Harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent Challenges of Computational Agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal 13.2 (2015), 203--218. http://ctlj.colorado. edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Tufekci-final.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. John Vines, Tess Denman-Cleaver, Paul Dunphy, Peter Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. Experience Design Theatre: Exploring the Role of Live Theatre in Scaffolding Design Dialogues. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 683--692. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Jeffrey Warshaw, Tara Matthews, Steve Whittaker, Chris Kau, Mateo Bengualid, and Barton A. Smith. 2015. Can an Algorithm Know the "Real You"?: Understanding People's Reactions to Hyper-personal Analytics Systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 797--806. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 493--502. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240704 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. More Than a Show: Using Personalized Immersive Theater to Educate and Engage the Public in Technology Ethics

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader