Summer School 2006
After Ivrea, Roma, Split and Timisoara the 5th Convivio Summer School came to Edinburgh, August 14th-25th.
The theme this year was: "Technology, Enjoying or Enduring it? Visions, Boundaries and Transformations in Extending or Replacing Human Capacities."
Read more...
- Categories
-
archive
Interview: Jan Chipchase.
Starting this month Convivio will publish interviews with leading voices in the field of Human-Centered Design, focusing each time on one of the various areas of expertise that contribute to HCD’s multi-disciplinary milieu.
Interviews will feature people from all over the world, but with an emphasis on European voices.
The discipline under the spotlight this month is Research, and the first guest is Jan Chipchase, Principal Researcher at Nokia, whose personal insights can be found on Future Perfect, Jan’s wonderful photo-intensive weblog. As he says: “… if I do my job right you’ll be using it 3 to 15 years from now.”
Hello Jan, thanks for taking the time from your busy schedule to participate… and for being the first one too.
Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and how you found your current professional path?
I’m a member of the Mobile HCI Group in Nokia Research and have been living in and working from Tokyo for the last 5 and half years.
Soon after graduating I joined a team developing teaching software and pretty swiftly realized the limits of my design skills. That prompted me to sign up for a Masters in User Interface Design at London Guildhall University which led to a UI development job at the Institute for Learning and Research Technology before joining Nokia’s Usability Group and from there to my current position.
About 50% of my time is spent on field study related activities and 50% is spent on concept development.
Along the way there have been stints living in London, Berlin, Brighton and Bristol, a fair bit of travel and managing a small design company.
The general direction has been influenced by Guenter Wallraff, Weegee and Larry Clark.
A common experience with User Researchers is that they seem to be “always on”, detecting patterns and/or documenting all they see to fit it into existing research domains… or creating new ones on the go. If Future Perfect, your blog, is any indication you seem to confirm this impression.
Is this a natural trait needed for any effective (and passionate) researcher, or is it one of those “professional compulsory habits”?
This work certainly benefits from an element of continuous observation and assessment, but I don’t think being “always on” is particularly unique.
It’s common to meet researchers that are passionate about what they do, that don’t stop thinking about an issue just because they’re not sitting at a desk or in the lab.
I imagine you’d get a similar answer from an architect or fiction writer.
But if the opposite of being “always on” is “switching off”, how important is it to take time off? To understand and design for life it helps to have one yourself.
I do have a habit of trying new things to experience the experience - having my ears cleaned in a Hue barber’s shop springs to mind. Sitting in the chair mentally breaking down the composite parts of the experience – the tools he used including a customized razor blade and a miner-style head torch, the background chatter, Vietnamese pop music on the radio, the sound of motorbike engines passing by plus his running commentary of what was happening.
Breaking things down into composite parts is simply how I make sense of the world around me.
One of my assumptions during interviews as well as more ad-hoc conversations is that everyone has something interesting to say you just need to figure out what it is. More often than not the listener enters a conversation assuming the opposite, doesn’t take the time to properly hear what’s actually being said, or quite simply the listener doesn’t have the skills or cultural context to appreciate the subtleties of what is communicated.
Everyone can reflect on their life experiences but that most people don’t choose to, and only a few choose to do so in a public forum. The issue is not whether we are ‘always on’, but what we are always on to.
What is it that is noticed? How much time is spent in absorbing, or in reflection, or in applying what is learned?
The context to me replying to this email interview is a fairly typical example of the kind of moments that support reflection. (I’m sitting in a Tokyo cafe waiting for vaccination clinic across the road to).
Thirty-five minutes filled by reviewing and writing.
To follow your question to its source one of the more amusing aspects of posting material to Future Perfect and using sites such as Flickr are the extrapolation that readers make based on what is posted to the site.
People tend to take personal sites (blogs) as a constant flow of information, and the default design elements of tools such as Movable Type support this, but what ends up being documented is pretty trivial compared to the richness of everyday life.
Take one year’s worth of photos posted to Future Perfect as an example: collectively the 500+ photos probably took less than a minute of exposure time to capture (and that minute includes one 30 second exposure).
How much does that “photographer’s minute” and the text that accompanies it communicate about the year and contexts in which the photos were captured?
More importantly what is missing and why?
You have been living in Tokyo for a long time, and travel constantly to other countries: how has this affected your work and insights?
Perspective, it provides perspective.
However, the cliché that “travel teaches you as much about yourself and your own culture as it does about others” is only partially true.
Travel is an opportunity to learn but it’s not the same as the ability or willingness to learn.
Do you think that “immersing” oneself in another culture is helpful or even essential to fuel the research process?
By “immersing” I’ll assume you mean being in context for extended periods of time combined with a degree of acceptance from the community or individuals that you are immersed with.
Yes, thank you for phrasing it much better than I ever could.
One of the assumptions of contextual design processes is that two weeks, two days or even two hours spent in the context of whatever or whomever we are researching is better than none.
A degree of immersion is certainly useful (and it’s certainly driven my own research), but I wouldn’t say it’s essential without first knowing what was being designed and by whom. It’s also important to keep some perspective about being in context and from there immersion; on a very practical level what can one expect to learn from short periods of time spent in another culture or context?
The perception of those “immersed experiences” also plays a role when it comes to communicating the research results.
Its one thing to say that you conducted qualitative research in a 3rd tier city in northern China, it’s another to show the richness of that context through a video of an interview conducted in a two room family apartment.
The extent of to which you were engrained in that context can be implied by the body language of the participants in the video or the degree of access you have in their home.
Diary techniques such as the everything-I-touch-diary can extend our reach and understanding into contexts which many readers would assume to be off limits, for example taking a shower, lying in bed, or sitting in a nightclub bathroom (all situations from which we have collected self-reported data).
In a recent study we wanted to understand the complete 24-hour flow of everyday life so we embedded researchers in participants’ homes for a couple days. It was an interesting exercise both in terms of understanding the user’s perspective, ethical considerations and the immense responsibility that comes with having access to the minutiae of peoples’ lives.
The study yielded interesting and relevant data but I certainly wouldn’t argue that it’s necessary to have that level of immersion on every project.
The extent to which the research team spends time in context is an issue I struggle with even on something as seemingly routine as deciding where to stay during a field study.
Our default accommodation is often a multi-national hotel chain with everything that that entails, but except for the financial elites in many of those societies you’re cut off from the people you’re researching.
But on the other hand to function effectively the team needs to work from a safe, clean environment that supports interaction with team members, home bases and the other people that are part of our working lives.
These demands create conflicting needs. My ideal situation is to book locally owned guest houses situated close to the communities where the research takes place though it doesn’t always work out that way.
This is probably a good point to raise the issue of cultural translation. Access to situations and contexts is important but how do you know you’re drawing the right conclusions?
It’s a particular challenge when spoken communication is through an interpreter. In many ways we are only as good as the local researchers that we partner with.
Yes, I have also had a chance to hear similar considerations from English-speaking researchers conducting their activities in Italy, assisted by an Italian researcher and/or translator.
This also brings to mind the old saying that when a book gets translated a good translator actually ends up rewriting the book, the whole activity actually being more of an interpretation than a literal adaptation from the original.
In terms of scope do you favor exploring large domains looking for emerging patterns or rather conduct field studies focused on specific interest areas?
For projects with a broad scope there is an element of not knowing where the value is going to come from which can be pretty daunting considering the resources that goes into making a multi-cultural study happen.
Generally I prefer to go in the field with a specific interest area, for example Mobile TV or illiterate contact management, clear topics that can be researched and delivered. During the project-planning phase I try to ensure methodologies that allow us to collect data on related issues and I always leave enough time to scout new topics.
The role of research is to explore the boundaries of what’s out there. It’s typical for some research to continue existing trajectories whilst others are at more of a tangent to current practices.
Tangent research topics tend to have higher risk, but taking (and managing) risk is an important part of successful research portfolio.
To some extent being the first amongst your peers (or your client’s peers) to conduct field research in a given area makes it easier to spot and document items of interest.
Some things are obvious, it’s just that no-one has looked or asked those questions in that context before. Assuming that the research findings are both new and relevant to the client’s interests, one of the highest compliments is when they say “that’s so obvious now”. The comment suggests that we’ve picked up on behaviors that are subtle enough to be largely invisible but common enough to be understood.
By saying “it’s obvious” the listener has already has bought into your view of the world which is half the battle of communicating the research.
A simple example of “obvious behavior” is in breaking down the reasons why so many people leave objects in taxis, the behaviour that people adopt to reduce the risk of forgetting (which we called the “Point of Reflection” in one of our studies), and why despite this behaviour people still forget.
Let’s look at research in the larger scheme of things for a moment.
A Human-Centered Design process should ideally have User Research as one of its ongoing activities, informing and validating the various phases of product development, but from what I’ve heard from researchers in the recent past there’s a certain amount of frustration regarding how and when it is actually integrated in the process.
I’ve sometimes heard it explained as “throwing your findings over a wall”… never to see/hear how they will be actually applied.
Leaving Nokia aside do you share similar concerns regarding the current fit of research-at-large in current product/service development processes?
User researchers don’t have a monopoly in understanding everyday life. It’s natural for researchers to assume a degree of ownership over ideas and concepts that they generate, but it’s important to recognise the limits of the research itself without buy in from other members of the design team and the organisation as a whole.
What steps need to be taken to make research relevant?
Who needs to buy into the research results for it to make a difference?
My colleagues are smart and I trust that they apply the research to their own context. A lot of the back-end work we do is about getting the right data to the right person in the right format at the right time.
If there is frustration in the way research is enterpreted then much of the blame falls on the researcher: not taking the time to understand the design needs of the research team; an inability to clearly communicating ideas, and not making the effort to re-package research results to arising needs.
Walls are there to be climbed over and once over the other side, knocked down (with the help of the rest of the design team, naturally).
That’s a fantastic answer Jan, and one that should apply to all team members in any multi-disciplinary context.
All too often I’ve heard complaints from usability engineers or interaction designers or project managers that others in the team/organization “don’t understand them and what they do”, but not as often I’ve heard the same people question their own willingness (and even ability) to shape a shared vocabulary to ease and foster dialogue with their colleagues.
Talking about dialogue and interaction among team members let’s also briefly look at the role participants usually have in ethnographic studies, which is often quite passive, as they are observed conducting their daily activities.
Participatory design practices, which are increasingly common these days, see people play a much more active role in shaping products and services.
Do you see this competing or integrating with the type of work you tend to be involved in?
We tend to apply a variety of research methods in a single field study ranging from observational techniques (observations, shadowing, diaries, logging) to being more interactive (in-depth or ad-hoc interviews, walk-throughs, role play) and yes, we sometimes actively engage participants in the design process.
Observations only take you so far in understanding what. To understand the why and the details of how you need to communication and engage with people. Deciding on what approach to adopt for any given project is dependent on understanding the resources that are available, and the people you have access to.
Good participatory design is dependent on participating with the right people, so the smart question is: who are the right people to work with, and what level of access will you have?
The bottom line is not to be hung up on using one method or another, but in figuring out what you’re trying to achieve and what resources and participants you have at your disposal.
Any chance you could be convinced to share a few secrets regarding how to find “the right participants”?
Unless absolutely necessary, avoid recruiting companies.
Ethnography and anthropology are current buzz-disciplines in the industry, and articles such as Business Week’s “The Science of Desire”, have both highlighted innovations fostered by the adoption of research practices in various industries, but also somewhat cautioned about potential misuses and pitfalls.
Is it maybe again a problem of “cultural translation”, only in a different setting?
A crude answer is it depends to what extent these words are appropriated, hyped, used and abused… but this is an answer coming from someone who doesn’t claim to be either an anthropologist or an ethnographer.
Shifting the focus onto methodologies, which are in your opinion the most effective ones when it comes to conducting field studies in a non-academic environment?
Any tips for others working in similar positions elsewhere?
In deciding what methods to use we always start with the participants and their need to be comfortable with the research process.
Given that we want to collect data from pretty much every context where the phone is used from when people get up to when they go to bed, and techniques such as wallet mapping can expose very sensitive data.
The tip is to keep the process simple for the team and transparent for the participants.
We work hard to ensure in-depth participants have sufficient control over the data that is gathered (the same principle works with ad-hoc participants such as street interviews though the process is a little different).
Participant control comes from a variety of techniques such as entrusting them with research team recording equipment, de-mystifying the technology that has invaded their space and more subtle techniques such as researchers remaining in lines of sight during home visits. More concretely we offer in-depth participants complete control over the data that is collected.
Towards the end of a session, after any rewards are handed over and before any data consent form is signed, we encourage participants to review all digital data we have collected on them and to delete what they don’t want us to have, no questions asked. Most participants delete one or two photos but no one has yet asked us to wipe everything.
We also like to follow up the study by sending participants a copy of the digital data that we retain, essentially the original data filtered to remove photos we consider inappropriate or overly sensitive (this can range from photos that include phone numbers or drying underwear it really depends on the study).
Knowing that the process is largely a positive experience for participants positively changes the way data is collected and handled.
You seem to be suggesting that a secret for conducting effective research is to treat people being observed as people, or as team members, and not just as “participants”, which sounds like a perfect way to frame the end of this exchange Jan.
Any infamous final word of advice for someone interested in following your footsteps?
Surround yourself with smart, committed people.
Sounds like the kind of suggestion that goes well beyond research and actually applies to all contexts, and I couldn’t agree more.
Thank you for your time and insightful answers Jan, looking forward to keep reading your reflections on Future Perfect.
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 19th, 2006 at 11:00 pm and is filed under User Research, Human Centered Design, Interviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
6 Responses to “Interview: Jan Chipchase.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:12 am
[…] Read interview Leave a Reply […]
October 21st, 2006 at 12:50 am
[…] Conivio Networks kicks off their interview series with Nokia Researcher Jan Chipchase, whose Future Perfect blog is always worth a look. […]
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:52 am
[…] A great interview with Jan Chipchase from the folks at the Convivio Network (”a Thematic network of researchers and practitioners from many backgrounds (computer science, human sciences, design, business) developing a broad discipline of human-centered design of digital systems for everday life.”) […]
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Thanks for conducting this interview with Jan - he’s a hero of mine as a storyteller, traveller, photographer, observer of culture. And I’m far from alone in that.
But I leave this comment here to applaud this interview for the wide range of issues you explored - and some really powerful and pertinent aspects of where the field is at today. It takes a lot of insight to ask the questions (as we all know) and you did a fantastic job with this.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:47 am
[…] Link: Interviews: Jan Chipchase (convivionetwork.net, via) […]
November 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
[…] Convivio Network - Interviews Jan Chipchase Good, lengthy interview with etnographer/designer Jan Chipchase (tags: mobile design etnography nokia) Filed in Del.icio.us on October 24th, 2006. […]