Amanda Nicole Curtis
ABSTRACT
New technologies and digitization have the potential to vastly alter our knowledge infrastructures. Specifically, this work focuses on the effects of interactive technologies on research practices, referred to as “interactive research artifacts.” Current research investigates the communicative affordances of such technologies, but minimal work critically examines the creative ways scholars are engaging with these artifacts. Through in-depth interviews with 14 scholars, and Design Studies literature, this work arrives at an understanding of interactive research artifacts as knowledge creation tools, rather than simply communicative tools. As such, to design for a future where interactive research artifacts become widely used scholarly tools, a comprehensive understanding of the ways in which these artifacts are used as means of knowledge creation is critical.
- Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, and Lone Koefoed Hansen. 2015. Immodest Proposals: Research Through Design and Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 2093–2102. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702400Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Peter Binfield. 2014. Novel Scholarly Journal Concepts. In Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing, Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesike (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 155–163. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_10Google Scholar
- Prasad Boradkar. 2016. Design + anthropology: an emergent discipline. In The Routledge companion to design studies, Penny Sparke and Fiona Fisher (eds.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London ; New York.Google Scholar
- Andy Clark. 2008. Supersizing the Mind. Oxford University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001Google Scholar
- Matthew Conlen, Megan Vo, Alan Tan, and Jeffrey Heer. 2021. Idyll Studio: A Structured Editor for Authoring Interactive & Data-Driven Articles. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, ACM, Virtual Event USA, 1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3472749.3474731Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rachel Cooper. 2019. Design research – Its 50-year transformation. Design Studies 65, (November 2019), 6–17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pierre Dragicevic, Yvonne Jansen, Abhraneel Sarma, Matthew Kay, and Fanny Chevalier. 2019. Increasing the Transparency of Research Papers with Explorable Multiverse Analyses. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’19, ACM Press, Glasgow, Scotland Uk, 1–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300295Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul N. Edwards. 2010. A vast machine: computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kathleen Fitzpatrick. 2011. Planned obsolescence: publishing, technology, and the future of the academy. New York University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Christopher Frayling and Royal College of Art. 1993. Research in art and design. Royal College of Art, London.Google Scholar
- William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Austin Texas USA, 937–946. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jennifer George-Palilonis and Mary Spillman. 2011. Interactive Graphics Development: A framework for studying innovative visual story forms. Visual Communication Quarterly 18, 3 (July 2011), 167–177. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2011.599286Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vlad P. Glăveanu and Ronald A. Beghetto. 2021. Creative Experience: A Non-Standard Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal 33, 2 (April 2021), 75–80. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1827606Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tuomo Hiippala. 2020. A multimodal perspective on data visualization. In Data visualization in society, Martin Engbretsen and Helen Kennedy (eds.). Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. Retrieved June 6, 2020 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctvzgb8c7Google Scholar
- Fred Hohman, Matthew Conlen, Jeffrey Heer, and Duen Chau. 2020. Communicating with Interactive Articles. Distill 5, 9 (September 2020), 10.23915/distill.00028. DOI:https://doi.org/10.23915/distill.00028Google ScholarCross Ref
- Noah Iliinsky and Julie Steele. 2011. Designing data visualizations: intentional communication from data to display. O'Reilly, Beijing.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth Anne Kinsella. 2008. Embodied Reflection and the Epistemology of Reflective Practice: Embodied Reflection and the Epistemology of Reflective Practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education 41, 3 (January 2008), 395–409. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2007.00574.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Julian Kiverstein. 2018. Extended Cognition. In The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition (1st ed.), Albert Newen, Leon De Bruin and Shaun Gallagher (eds.). Oxford University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.001.0001Google Scholar
- Markus Konkol, Christian Kray, and Jan Suleiman. 2019. Creating Interactive Scientific Publications using Bindings. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, EICS (June 2019), 1–18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3331158Google ScholarDigital Library
- John J. Leggett and Frank M. Shipman. 2004. Directions for hypertext research: exploring the design space for interactive scholarly communication. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Hypertext & hypermedia - HYPERTEXT ’04, ACM Press, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1012807.1012812Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kep Kee Loh and Ryota Kanai. 2016. How Has the Internet Reshaped Human Cognition? Neuroscientist 22, 5 (October 2016), 506–520. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858415595005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher McComb and Kathryn Jablokow. 2022. A conceptual framework for multidisciplinary design research with example application to agent-based modeling. Design Studies 78, (January 2022), 101074. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101074Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tara McPherson. 2018. Feminist in a software lab: difference + design. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts ; London, England.Google Scholar
- Bernard K. Means. 2015. Promoting a More Interactive Public Archaeology: Archaeological Visualization and Reflexivity through Virtual Artifact Curation. Adv. archaeol. pract. 3, 3 (August 2015), 235–248. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.3.3.235Google Scholar
- Kumiyo Nakakoji, Yasuhiro Yamamoto, Shingo Takada, and Brent N. Reeves. 2000. Two-dimensional spatial positioning as a means for reflection in design. In Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, and techniques - DIS ’00, ACM Press, New York City, New York, United States, 145–154. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347697Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chris Olah, Alexander Mordvintsev, and Ludwig Schubert. 2017. Feature Visualization. Distill 2, 11 (November 2017), 10.23915/distill.00007. DOI:https://doi.org/10.23915/distill.00007Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chris Peters and Tamara Witschge. 2015. From Grand Narratives of Democracy to Small Expectations of Participation: Audiences, citizenship, and interactive tools in digital journalism. Journalism Practice 9, 1 (January 2015), 19–34. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.928455Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sara Brin Rosenthal, Julia Len, Mikayla Webster, Aaron Gary, Amanda Birmingham, and Kathleen M Fisch. 2018. Interactive network visualization in Jupyter notebooks: visJS2jupyter. Bioinformatics 34, 1 (January 2018), 126–128. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx581Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adam Rule, Aurélien Tabard, and James D. Hollan. 2018. Exploration and Explanation in Computational Notebooks. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18, ACM Press, Montreal QC, Canada, 1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173606Google ScholarDigital Library
- William Ryan and Martin A. Siegel. 2020. Learning-in-use of interactive artifacts: A longitudinal study analyzing the learning experience. (January 2020). DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2609039Google Scholar
- Gavriel Salomon. 1990. Cognitive Effects With and Of Computer Technology. Communication Research 17, 1 (February 1990), 26–44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/009365090017001002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julie Sarama and Douglas H. Clements. 2009. “Concrete” Computer Manipulatives in Mathematics Education: “Concrete” Computer Manipulatives in Mathematics Education. Child Development Perspectives 3, 3 (December 2009), 145–150. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00095.xGoogle Scholar
- Donald A. Schön. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (1. ed ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.Google Scholar
- Moushumi Sharmin and Brian P. Bailey. 2013. ReflectionSpace: an interactive visualization tool for supporting reflection-on-action in design. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition, ACM, Sydney Australia, 83–92. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2466627.2466645Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michelle Sidler. 2014. Open Science and the Three Cultures: Expanding Open Science to all Domains of Knowledge Creation. In Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing, Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesike (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 81–85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_5Google Scholar
- Paul Smart. 2017. Extended Cognition and the Internet: A Review of Current Issues and Controversies. Philos. Technol. 30, 3 (September 2017), 357–390. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0250-2Google Scholar
- Erik Stolterman and Jonas Löwgren. 2007. Thoughtful Interaction Design a Design Perspective on Information Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Erik Stolterman and Mikael Wiberg. 2010. Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research. Human–Computer Interaction 25, 2 (May 2010), 95–118. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020903586696Google Scholar
- S. Shyam Sundar, Haiyan Jia, T. Franklin Waddell, and Yan Huang. 2015. Toward a Theory of Interactive Media Effects (TIME): Four Models for Explaining How Interface Features Affect User Pyschology. In The handbook of the psychology of communication technology, S. Shyam Sundar (ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Malden, MA, 47–86.Google Scholar
- Sam Van Horne, Marisa Henze, Kathy L. Schuh, Carolyn Colvin, and Jae-Eun Russell. 2017. Facilitating adoption of an interactive e-textbook among university students in a large, introductory biology course. J Comput High Educ 29, 3 (December 2017), 477–495. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9153-1Google Scholar
- Bret Victor. 2011. Explorable Explanations. Retrieved from http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/Google Scholar
- Matthew Ward, Georges G. Grinstein, and Daniel Keim. 2010. Interactive data visualization: foundations, techniques, and applications. A K Peters, Natick, Mass.Google Scholar
- Anders Ynnerman, Jonas Lowgren, and Lena Tibell. 2018. Exploranation: A New Science Communication Paradigm. IEEE Comput. Grap. Appl. 38, 3 (May 2018), 13–20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2018.032421649Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Yu, M. Carrasco Kind, and R.J. Brunner. 2017. Vizic: A Jupyter-based interactive visualization tool for astronomical catalogs. Astronomy and Computing 20, (July 2017), 128–139. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2017.06.004Google Scholar
- 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, San Jose California USA, 493–502. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Zimmerman, Erik Stolterman, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. An Analysis and Critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach. In Poceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems DIS 2010. Retrieved July 16, 2020 from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1858171&CFID=249137935&CFTOKEN=25478592Google ScholarDigital Library
- 2019. OKAI. Project OKAI. Retrieved August 1, 2020 from https://t.co/zix0eGSECd?amp=1Google Scholar
- Francis Bacon Network [2, 1562-1626, 61-100%]. Six Degrees of Francis Bacon. Retrieved February 21, 2021 from http://www.sixdegreesoffrancisbacon.com/?ids=10000473&min_confidence=60&type=networkGoogle Scholar
Recommendations
Interactive Research Artifacts: Interactive Technologies as Tools for Knowledge Creation
CHI EA '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsNew technologies and digitization have the potential to vastly alter our knowledge infrastructures. Specifically, this work focuses on the effects of interactive technologies on research practices, referred as “interactive research artifacts.” Current ...
Deployments of the table-non-table: A Reflection on the Relation Between Theory and Things in the Practice of Design Research
CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsDesign-oriented research in HCI has increasingly migrated towards theoretical perspectives to understand the implications of newly crafted technology in everyday life. However, in this context, the relations between theory and understanding the things ...
An analysis and critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach
DIS '10: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive SystemsThe field of HCI is experiencing a growing interest in Research through Design (RtD), a research approach that employs methods and processes from design practice as a legitimate method of inquiry. We are interested in expanding and formalizing this ...
Comments