skip to main content
research-article

Applying the lens of sensory ethnography to sustainable HCI

Published:17 September 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Sociological appropriations of practice theory as applied to sustainable design have successfully problematized overly simplistic and individualistic models of consumer choice and behavior change. By taking everyday practices as the principal units of analysis, they move towards acknowledging the socially and materially structured nature of human activity. However, to inform sustainable HCI we also need to understand how practices are part of wider experiential environments and flows of practical activity. In this article, we develop an approach rooted in phenomenological anthropology and sensory ethnography. This approach builds on theories of place, perception and movement and enables us to situate practices, and understand practical activity, as emplaced within complex and shifting ecologies of things. Drawing on an interdisciplinary study of domestic energy consumption and digital media use, we discuss ethnographic and design practice examples. We demonstrate how this theoretical and methodological framework can be aligned with the 3rd paradigm of HCI.

References

  1. Abowd, G., Dey, A., Brown, P., Davies, N., Smith, M., and Steggles, P. 1999. Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1707, Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Barnes, B. 2001. Practice as collective action. In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, T. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, and E. von Savigny, Eds., Routledge, London, 17--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhamra, T., Lilley, D., and Tang, T. 2011. Design for sustainable behaviour: Using products to change consumer behaviour. Design J. 14, 4, 427--445.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Bødker, S. 2006. When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bull, M. 2005. No dead air! The iPod and the culture of mobile listening. Leisure Studies. 24, 4, 343--355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Chatterton, T. 2011. An introduction to thinking about ‘energy behaviour’: a multi model approach. Paper for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, O. Anderson, Ed., Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Chetty, M., Tran, D., and Grinter, R. E. 2008. Getting to green: understanding resource consumption in the home. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp'08). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Clarke, A. 2011. Design Anthropology: Object Culture in the 21st Century. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Couldry, N. 2010. Theorising media as practice. In Theorising Media and Practice, B. Bräuchler and J. Postill, Eds., Berghahn, Oxford, 35--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Crabtree, A. 2003. Designing Collaborative Systems: A Practical Guide to Ethnography. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Darby, S. 2010. Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? Build. Res. Inf. 38, 5, 442--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Dourish, P. 2010. HCI and environmental sustainability: the politics of design and the design of politics. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Dourish, P. and Bell, G. 2011. Divining a Digital Future: Mess And Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dourish, P. 2001a. Where The Action Is: The Foundations Of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Boston. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dourish, P. 2001b. Seeking a foundation for context-aware computing. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 16, 2--4, 229--241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Dourish, P. 2006. Implications for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 541--550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Gill, Z., Tierney, M., Pegg, I., and Allan, N. 2010. Low-energy dwellings: the contribution of behaviours to actual performance. Build. Res. Inf. 38, 5, 491--508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Gram-Hanssen, K. 2007. Teenage consumption of cleanliness: how to make it sustainable? Sustainability Sci. 3, 2, 15--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gunn, W. 2008. Learning to ask naïve questions with IT product design students. Arts Humanities Higher Educ. 7, 3, 323--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Haines, V., Mitchell, V., and Mallaband, B. 2012. Merging a practice-orientated approach with an engineering-driven product development: a case study on home improvement. J. Design Res. 10, 1/2, 28--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. 1996. Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'96). ACM, 67--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Harrison, S., Sengers, P., and Tatar, D. 2011. Making epistemological trouble. Interact. Comput. 23, 385--392. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Harrison, S., Tatar, D., and Sengers, P. 2007. The three paradigms of HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobart, M. 2010. What do we mean by ‘media practices’? In Theorising Media and Practice, B. Bräuchler and J. Postill, Eds., Berghahn, Oxford, 55--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Howes, D. 2005. Skinscapes: Embodiment, Culture and Environment. In The Book of Touch, C. Classen, Ed., Berg, Oxford, 27--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ingold, T. 2007. Lines: A Brief History.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Ingold, T. 2008. Anthropology is not ethnography. Proc. British Acad. 154, 69--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ingold, T. 2011. Being Alive. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuijer, L. and De Jong, A. 2011a. Exploring practices of thermal comfort for sustainable design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuijer, L. and De Jong, A. 2011b. Practice theory and human-centered design: a sustainable bathing example. In Proceedings of the Nordic Design Research Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuijer, L. and De Jong, A. 2012. Identifying design opportunities for reduced household resource consumption: exploring practices of thermal comfort. J. Design Res. 10, 1/2, 67--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Law, J. 2001. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Mankoff, J. C., Blevis, E., Borning, A., Friedman, B., Fussell, S. R., Hasbrouck, J., Woodruff, A., and Sengers, P. 2007. Environmental sustainability and interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 211--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Marchand, T. H. J. 2010. Making knowledge: explorations of the indissoluble relation between minds, bodies, and environment. J. Royal Anthropological Inst. 16, Issue Supplement, S1--S21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Massey, D. 2005. For Space. Sage, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Morosanu, R. 2011. Domestic moments of consumption and multisensory experience. Paper presented at the postgraduate group of discussions in material culture and digital anthropology, University College London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Muller, M. J. 2003. Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In Handbook of HCI, J. Jacko and A. Sears, Eds., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. O'Brien, J., Rodden, T., and Rouncefield, M. 1999. At home with technology: an ethnographic study of a set top box trial. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 6, 282--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. OFCOM. 2012. Communications Market Report 2012. Available online at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_2012.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Peterson, M. A. 2010. ‘But it is my habit to read the Times’: Metaculture and practice in the reading of Indian newspapers. In Theorising Media and Practice, B. Bräuchler and J. Postill, Eds., Berghahn, Oxford, 127--146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Pierce, J., Fan, C., Lomas, D., Marcu, G., and Paulos, E. 2010. Some considersations on the (in)effectiveness of residential energy feedback systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Pierce, J., Schiano, D., and Paulos, E. 2010. Home, habits, and energy: examining domestic interactions and energy consumption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Pink, S. 2004. Home Truths: Gender, Domestic Objects and Everyday Life. Berg, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Pink, S. 2009. Doing Sensory Ethnography. SAGE, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Pink, S. 2011. Drawing with our feet (and trampling the maps): Walking with video as a graphic anthropology. In Redrawing Anthropology, T. Ingold, Ed., Ashgate, Farnham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Pink, S. 2012. Situating Everyday Life: Practices and Places, Sage, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Pink, S. and Leder Mackley, K. 2012. Video and a sense of the invisible: Approaching domestic energy consumption through the sensory home. Sociological Res. Online. 17, 1, 3, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/1/3.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Räsänen, M. and Nyce, J. 2006. A new role for anthropology?: rewriting ‘context’ and ‘analysis’ in HCI research. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles (NordiCHI'06).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Reckwitz, A. 2002. Towards a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. Eur. J. Social Theory 5, 2, 243--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Rittel, H. and Webber, M. 1984. Planning problems are wicked problems. In Developments in Design Methodology, N. Cross, Ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 135--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Rogers, Y. 2006. Moving on from Weiser's vision of calm computing: engaging ubicomp experiences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp'06). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Schatzki, T. 1996. Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Schatzki, T. 2001. Introduction: Practice theory. In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, T. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, and E. von Savigny, Eds., Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., and Kaye, J. 2005. Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility (CC'05). O. W. Bertelsen, N. O. Bouvin, P. G. Krogh, and M. Kyng, Eds., ACM, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Sengers, P., Boehner, K., and Knouf, N. 2009. Sustainable HCI meets third wave HCI: 4 themes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organziation of Normality. Berg, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M., and Ingram, J. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life. Berg, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Shove, E. 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plan. A 42, 6, 1273--1285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Strengers, Y. 2011. Negotiating everyday life: The role of energy and water consumption feedback. J. Consumer Culture. 11, 3, 319--338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Swan, L., Taylor, A. S., and Harper, R. 2008. Making place for clutter and other ideas of home. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 15, 2, Article 9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Tacchi, J. 1998. Radio texture: Between self and others. In Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter, D. Miller, Ed., University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Warde, A. 2005. Consumption and theories of practice. J. Consumer Culture 5, 2, 131--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Weisner, M., Gold, R., and Brown, J. S. 1999. Origins of ubiquitous computing research at PARC in the late 1980s. IBM Syst. J. 38, 4, 693--696. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Wilcox, S. and Pawson, H., Eds. 2010. UK housing review 2010/2011 (Compendium: Dwellings, Stock Conditions and Households). http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ukhr/ukhr1011/compendium.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolf, T. V., Rode, J. A., Sussman, J., and Kellogg, W. A. 2006. Dispelling ‘design’ as the black art of CHI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 521--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Woodruff, A., Hasbrouck, J., and Augustin, S. 2008. A bright green perspective on sustainable choices. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'08). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Ylirisku, S. and Buur, J. 2007. Designing with Video: Focusing the User-Centered Design Process. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Ylirisku, S., Halttunen, V., Nuojua, J., and Juustila, A. 2009. Framing design in the third paradigm. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'09). ACM, Press, NY, 1131--1140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Applying the lens of sensory ethnography to sustainable HCI

        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

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
          ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 20, Issue 4
          Special issue on practice-oriented approaches to sustainable HCI
          September 2013
          156 pages
          ISSN:1073-0516
          EISSN:1557-7325
          DOI:10.1145/2509404
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2013 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 ACM 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: 17 September 2013
          • Accepted: 1 March 2013
          • Revised: 1 October 2012
          • Received: 1 April 2012
          Published in tochi Volume 20, Issue 4

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader