On Subjectivity

Boehner et al. (2007) claim that designers have a subjective role in creating probes and that they "reveal themselves through the design proposals or through speculative design inspired by the probe results". Is this subjectivity problematic?

Whether we are researchers or designers, we inevitably wear certain lenses in filtering information and focusing on specific aspects of “facts.” As Werner Herzog says, "Facts do not constitute truth." (Theodore 2014). As much as we may try to be objective, our perspectives are colored by past experiences and the resulting inner emotional world, sometimes without us even realizing it.

As designers, we are taught to reflect in action and reflect on action (Schön 1987). Reflecting on how our viewpoint affects what we design is a part of it. It’s not that we necessarily have an agenda in mind and deliberately try to design based on it. The subjectivity can be on autopilot, especially if we have little self-awareness about what we bring to the table. That’s part of the reason why reflection is so important for designers.

Perspectives differ. Perspectives can vary widely from one persona to another. Therefore, the same study purpose can result in drastically different interviews or even methods. For example, when we conduct an interview, whom we decide the interview means whom we are giving a voice; what questions we ask in the interview determines what our subject can articulate. All these decisions depend on our judgments, which are influenced by our perspectives.

Additionally, like Boehner et al (ibid.) argue, cultural probes can also have very different configurations from one researcher to another. Even with the same configuration, the interpretation of the result often is wide open, too.

Even quantitative analysis involves perspectives. For example, when we remove outliers from our dataset, we choose to ignore data points that do not conform to the majority pattern. This practice marginalizes what is not “normal.” There are ethical and possibly other issues in this practice, and the consequences can be profound and far-reaching.

Is it possible to be objective? Should we try to be objective? In my view, we can strive to be objective, but we need to be aware of the danger in claiming to be objective by keeping a critical eye on such claims. Even claiming to be objective represents a certain perspective. I think the most important thing is to hold ourselves accountable for the judgments we make in the form of rationale, and not to be afraid of making judgments, which according to Nelson and Stolterman (2014) is an essential part of what designers do.

Perhaps when we are not ashamed of saying we have our perspectives, we can articulate our rationale better, and we can better appreciate the connection between people’s viewpoints and their past experiences.

References

Kirsten Boehner, Janet Vertesi, Phoebe Sengers, and Paul Dourish. 2007. How HCI Interprets the Probes. Paper presented at CHI 2007, April 28-May 3, 2007 in San Jose, CA, USA.

Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman. 2014. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpreductable World. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Donald Schön. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Marie-Françoise Theodore. 2014. 12 Things I Learned at Werner Herzog's Rogue Film School. Retrieved from http://www.indiewire.com/article/12-things-i-learned-at-werner-herzogs-rogue-film-school-20140924 on March 4, 2015.

Note: This post was originally composed for a weekly blog post assignment for the course “Interaction Design Methods” at the School of Informatics and Computing at Indiana University Bloomington.