Navimation Research

Workshop: Mieke Bal on case study

Monday and Tuesday afternoon this week I attended a two-day workshop at HIO with Mieke Bal, a cultural theorist and critic based in Amsterdam. The theme of the workshop was the case study, and “how to move beyond the particularity of single-object studies”. The problem of the case study is that of generalisation from one single event, as the specific can never be generalized. The case study should not be the only type of study in a discipline. However, it can be used as a tool for polemics: it can challenge the discipline, the repetitive work, and our prejudices and ideas. I suspect this is a rather unconventional view of the case study. Here are some of the core concepts that were discussed:

Abduction

Abduction is an alternative to generalisation. Mieke described this as “abducting a work for another purpose”. Rather than generalizing from one case, we go back and forth between different cases. Going from the case, the observable fact, we end up with a possible cause, a hypothetical explanation. This is different from deduction (going from cause to consequence) and induction (going from the particular to the general). Abduction is also a space for creative thinking, and knowledge is seen as provisional rather than fixed.

Theoretical object

As an alternative to the notion of the case, Mike proposes the concept of theoretical object. This is an artwork or something else that obliges to do theory. The theoretical object poses theoretical terms, it produces theory through triggering people’s minds, and it necessitates reflection on theory itself. As the work exists in time, it is always in becoming. The theorizing is therefore dynamic and ongoing. The becoming of the work surpasses the moment of making, so that the intentions of the artist or designer are irrelevant. When we look for an object to analyse, we must therefore look for one that raises questions. We should also remember that the theoretical object is another subject to which we are responsible, even though (or precisely because) it doesn’t speak back.

Choosing a theoretical object does not have to mean choosing only one object in isolation. Rather, it is fruitful to dynamically juxtapose different objects in a series, so that they complete each other, and constitute a field for discussing certain general concepts. In research by design, this would mean including the result of my own design production as a work amongst other works, and reflect on how they all relate to the concepts.

The singular vs. the particular

The particular has a one-to-one relationship between the individual and the event. Consequently, it is not necessarily relevant beyond the particular situation. The singular however, has a relation to generality, and can be shared. The particular can be transformed into the singular, and the singular can transform into another singularity. The case study should focus on the singular, not the particular.

Subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity

In research, there is a need to move beyond the subjective, as we need to know that what we do is  relevant not only for ourselves. However, according to Mieke, the opposite of the subjective is not the objective, but the intersubjective. The intersubjective is what is shared by more than one conscious mind, as we are all subjects involved in culture. As culture continuously expands and changes, there is no end to this kind of knowledge.

Performance vs. performativity

According to Mieke Bal, performance and performativity are two distinct concepts, still they are not separate as they are always an aspect of one another. Performance is the act of executing something from memory, as a skilled and thoughtful production, playing a role. Performativity is the unique occurrence of an act in itself, here and now, in the unique present. In her book Travelling Concepts in the Humanities (2002: 183), she writes, “the elements of present and past in memory are what specifically distinguish performance and performativity”.

Reference:
Bal, Mieke (2002) Travelling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide. Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press.

Why am I blogging this? The seminar gave me new insights that will be relevant to my work, and I believe some of these concepts could be interesting for others doing design research as well.

Tags: case study, concepts, HIO, humanities, Mieke Bal, Theory, workshop

My project presented with Cooliris

Maziar Raein, one of the external lecturers in the PhD course, gave us the task to choose about 15 images related to our PhD project, and write something about them. As I understood the task, we were encouraged to experiment with modes of presenting text and images together.

I chose to use the Cooliris interface for giving a general presentation of my project. In my opinion, this form of presentation encourages a “non-linear exploration”. The presentation itself serves as an example of what the project is investigating: interfaces that make use of visual movement in navigation. I believe it also demonstrates how the presentation form (or the interface) can radically alter the understanding and experience of the content.

Click here to go to the presentation.

Tags: AHO, cooliris, experiment, navimation, piclens, task

Technological and aesthetical aspects of my project

In the PhD school at AHO, we were asked to write a short text about how and in what ways technological and aesthetical aspects will be a concern in our projects, and in what ways we plan to approach them. This is my text:

Technology

The object of my study is the computer interface, which is made possible only through the relatively recent discovery and ongoing developments of computer technologies. I focus on the interface as a medium that communicates certain values, knowledge or beliefs. I adopt a socio-cultural perspective on media, technology and communication, and see technology related to tools through which we can express ourselves and mediate information and meaning. Even though technology is not the main concern in my research, I relate to it in two important ways:
– Theoretically: understand how interfaces and the design of these relate to technology. How do digital development tools facilitate the inclusion of certain interface features at the expense of others? How does this affect the aesthetic qualities and possibilities for communication in the interface?
- Practically: in my own work I will have to deal with the possibilities and limits of contemporary technology and emerging technologies connected to dynamic interfaces. Especially, in doing “research by design”, through designing artefacts myself, I will have to use available technological tools, which naturally will affect the results.
A general challenge in researching something based on digital technology is the rapid development in the field. Doing proper research appears to be a rather slow activity, so there is a challenge of how to follow the technical development at a practical as well as theoretical level. The object of my study is continuously in movement, so to speak, as are designers’ aesthetic expressions and choices embodied in interfaces that explore and innovate aesthetically and communicatively by way of changing technical parameters and computer applications.

Aesthetics

Aesthetics is a historically complex field, and I will need more time to understand its different interpretations, and how it relates to my project. According to Ludwig Wittgenstein(1), beauty is not a property of the object itself, as an experience always involves interpretation on behalf of the viewer. Taking this point further, the aesthetic experience may also be seen as relational to the cultural and social context, rather than existing in an independent and private space(2). I am particularly interested in the communicative aspects of aesthetics, and how interfaces communicate multimodally through aesthetical means, i.e. through visual movement. However, aesthetics is not only bound to beauty or visual perception. It may relate to our rational or irrational interpretations, to different senses such as touch and hearing, or to the experience of interacting with an interface over time. In the evolving field of interaction design, the emphasis on user-centered design also poses new questions regarding aesthetics and the role of the designer. The field needs greater clarification of aesthetics and dynamic interfaces at the level of communication and not only information and systems design.

The PhD course has so far given some valuable and specific insights into the concepts of technology and aesthetics. However, to relate this to my project I will need to carry on studying these fields and concepts, and get more specific to the approach and object of my own research.

1. Wittgenstein, L. (1966). Lectures and conversations on aesthetics, psychology and religious belief. Oxford: Blackwell.
2. Bourriaud, N. (1998). Relational Aesthetics. Les presses du reel.

Tags: aesthetics, AHO, PhD school, technology

Dynamic tag cloud

I’m rather surprised that it is so hard to find visually dynamic templates for WordPress. I only found one example of a template that apply a certain degree of motion. Unfortunately I haven’t got the time (or knowledge) to make a new dynamic template myself. However, as a consolation I found this cool plugin called WP Cumulus. It simply takes the tags from my blog, and presents them in a three-dimensional interactive rotating cloud. So now I suddenly have a good reason for adding tags to my posts..

Tags: dynamic, example, interactive, motion, tags, template, wordpress

Presentation: Bouvet

Today I presented my project for the Norwegian company Bouvet, which describes itself as “a provider of consultancy and development services within information technology”. About 20 people with background from dissimilar fields such as graphic design, information architecture and anthropology attended the session.

My presentation (in Norwegian): Grensesnitt i bevegelse

The reactions to my presentation were quite diverse. Someone argued that navimation is technologically difficult, expensive and time consuming to develop, while others argued that the technological constrains are not the real problem: rather the problem may be in our heads, related to attitude.

It was interesting to hear about the relationship between the design/development consultancy and the business customers. Naturally, the customers do not want to spend money on anything that appears “useless”, and this often results in rather conventional solutions. On the other hand, companies with plenty of resources are not afraid of taking some chances, and are thereby more willing to explore new types of interfaces.

However, Navimation is not useless or superficial styling, but can be used for functional as well as communicative purposes. I was happy to get good feedback at Bouvet, and also pleased to get some interesting links and tips to follow up in my research.

Tags: Bouvet, event, navimation, presentation