Surfacing Small Worlds through Data-In-Place

Very happy to have another pub­lic­a­tion from the monu­ment­al Ten­ison Road pro­ject, this time in the Journ­al of Computer-Supported Cooper­at­ive Work (CSCW).

Lind­ley, S.E., Thieme, A., Taylor, A.S. et al. (2017). Sur­fa­cing Small Worlds through Data-In-Place. Com­puter Sup­por­ted Cooper­at­ive Work.

An exten­ded engage­ment with a com­munity and its data

Arrow
Arrow

 
Abstract

We present find­ings from a five-week deploy­ment of vot­ing tech­no­lo­gies in a city neigh­bour­hood. Draw­ing on Mar­res’ (2012) work on mater­i­al par­ti­cip­a­tion and Massey’s (2005) con­cep­tu­al­isa­tion of space as dynam­ic, we designed the deploy­ment such that the tech­no­lo­gies (which were situ­ated in res­id­ents’ homes, on the street, and avail­able online) would work in con­cert, cut­ting across the neigh­bour­hood to make vis­ible, jux­ta­pose and draw togeth­er the dif­fer­ent ‘small worlds’ with­in it. We demon­strate how the mater­i­al infra­struc­ture of the vot­ing devices set in motion par­tic­u­lar pro­cesses and inter­pret­a­tions of par­ti­cip­a­tion, put­ting data in place in a way that had rami­fic­a­tions for the recog­ni­tion of het­ero­gen­eity. We con­clude that redis­trib­ut­ing par­ti­cip­a­tion means not only open­ing up access, so that every­one can par­ti­cip­ate, or even provid­ing a mul­ti­tude of vot­ing chan­nels, so that people can par­ti­cip­ate in dif­fer­ent ways. Rather, it means mak­ing vis­ible mul­ti­pli­city, chal­len­ging notions of sim­il­ar­ity, and show­ing how dif­fer­ence may be pro­duct­ive.

See more on the CSCW site here. See an early draft here.

Paper presented at 4S/EASST meeting

At the com­bined 4S/EASST meet­ing this year, Sarah Kem­ber and I presen­ted a paper titled:

Writerly (ac)counts of finite flour­ish­ings and pos­sibly bet­ter ways of being togeth­er

As Sarah’s intro­duc­tion to the paper out­lined, our co-writings were an attempt to think with the emer­ging strategies of fem­in­ist count­ing, account­ing and re-counting.

Below, I present my part to the co-authered piece. It’s long, so I put it here more for the record than any expect­a­tion it will be read. I must add that the ideas I present draw on work done by . Without her energy and always thought­ful invest­ment in the field site, this reflec­tion would not have been pos­sible: (more…)

… work­ing from Newcastle’s Open Lab

Artificial Intelligence: asking the right questions

Children with robot in vintage styled photo.

Nesta kindly invited me to one of their ‘hot top­ics’ events a couple of weeks ago to present a pro­voca­tion on AI and human-computer inter­ac­tion. They also asked for me to write a few words that they’ve now pub­lished on the “TheLong+Short” blog here. I append the ori­gin­al text to my pro­voca­tion below.

I came across this pho­to on my com­puter today (sorry, I’ve looked to see if I can attrib­ute it to someone, but so far failed). It’s a lovely image in it’s own right, play­ing with a vin­tage qual­ity to the future, but in this con­text I think it does invite the ques­tion ‘is this the lim­it of our ima­gin­a­tions?’ I’d like to sug­gest AI might open us up to so much more. (more…)

Re-making places

At the CHI con­fer­ence this year, Clara Crivel­laro presen­ted this paper on our amaz­ing work at a regen­er­a­tion site on the out­skirts of Lon­don. The work touches on many issues that are import­ant to me, from grass­roots par­ti­cip­a­tion and hous­ing to invent­ive meth­ods and technoscience’s pro­duct­ive pos­sib­il­it­ies.

HCI, ‘Com­munity Build­ing’ and Change

Clara Crivel­laro, Alex Taylor, Vasil­is Vlachokyriakos, Rob Comber, Bet­tina Nis­sen, Peter Wright

Abstract
We present insights from an exten­ded engage­ment and design inter­ven­tion at an urb­an regen­er­a­tion site in SE Lon­don. We describe the pro­cess of design­ing a walk­ing trail and sys­tem for record­ing and play­ing back place-specific stor­ies for those liv­ing and work­ing on the hous­ing estate, and show how this is set with­in a wider con­text of urb­an renewal, social/affordable hous­ing and “com­munity build­ing”. Like pri­or work, the research reveals the fric­tions that arise in par­ti­cip­at­ory engage­ments with het­ero­gen­eous act­ors. Here we illus­trate how mater­i­al inter­ven­tions can rearrange exist­ing spa­tial con­fig­ur­a­tions, mak­ing pro­duct­ive the plur­al­ity of accounts intrins­ic in com­munity life. Through this, we provide an ori­ent­a­tion to HCI and design inter­ven­tions that are con­cerned with civic engage­ment and par­ti­cip­a­tion in pro­cesses of mak­ing places.

Back to interaction (a reply to Barry)

I’m grate­ful to Barry Brown for his com­ments on my short Inter­ac­tions piece, “After Inter­ac­tion”.

Barry, as always, you’ve forced me to think more care­fully about my mean­der­ings. Indeed, my inten­tion was to append a short reply to your com­ment, but your ques­tions have deman­ded more and, pre­dict­ably, words have got the bet­ter of me. This post, then, is my long-winded respon­se. Thank you for giv­ing me the chance to expand on my thoughts.

First, let me respond to your cri­ti­cisms regard­ing the inter­ming­lings of humans and non­hu­mans. (more…)

Earthwide projects” at Shifting Borderlands, Aarhus 2015

I was delighted to par­ti­cip­ate in last month’s “Shift­ing Bor­der­lands” work­shop at the decen­ni­al Aar­hus Con­fer­ence: Crit­ic­al Altern­at­ives . What an inspir­ing and mem­or­able event! My sin­cerest thanks to the organ­isers, Silvia, Mar­isa, Lucian, Hrönn and Carl.

The pos­i­tion papers—from a won­der­ful mix of people—are all online here. My own text was a short but ram­bling piece on some still under­developed ideas. I’ve been try­ing to think a little more crit­ic­ally about my role as a aca­dem­i­cian and a Microsoft research­er. Pre­dict­ably, in com­bin­a­tion, the roles raise all sorts of ques­tions and fric­tions for me. Increas­ingly, I’ve dir­ec­ted my efforts at think­ing about the worlds I’ve helped to enact and ask­ing wheth­er they are kinds of worlds that I would want to live in.

It’s hard to put it bet­ter than Don­na Har­away:

My piece, “Impact and Count­ing”, is avail­able here.

Har­away, D. (1988). Situ­ated know­ledges: The sci­ence ques­tion in fem­in­ism and the priv­ilege of par­tial per­spect­ive. Fem­in­ist stud­ies, 14(3): 579.

Presenting “Data in place”

We’re present­ing a paper at CHI this year on Ten­ison Road.

Alex S. Taylor, Siân Lind­ley, Tim Regan, Dav­id Sweeney, Vasil­is Vlachokyriakos, Lil­lie Grainger, Jes­sa Lin­gel (2015), Data-in-Place: Think­ing through the Rela­tions Between Data and Com­munity, CHI 2015.

Here’s the abstract:

We present find­ings from a year-long engage­ment with a street and its com­munity. The work explores how the pro­duc­tion and use of data is bound up with place, both in terms of phys­ic­al and social geo­graphy. We detail three strands of the pro­ject. First, we con­sider how res­id­ents have sought to cur­ate exist­ing data about the street in the form of an archive with phys­ic­al and digit­al com­pon­ents. Second, we report endeav­ours to cap­ture data about the street’s envir­on­ment, espe­cially of vehicle traf­fic. Third, we draw on the pos­sib­il­it­ies afforded by tech­no­lo­gies for polling opin­ion. We reflect on how these engage­ments have: mater­i­al­ised dis­tinct­ive rela­tions between the com­munity and their data; sur­faced flows and con­tours of data, and spa­tial, tem­por­al and social bound­ar­ies; and enacted a mul­ti­pli­city of ‘small worlds’. We con­sider how such a con­cep­tu­al­isa­tion of data-in-place is rel­ev­ant to the design of tech­no­logy.

Published Modelling Biology – working through (in-)stabilities and frictions

Just had our paper on Com­pu­ta­tion­al Bio­logy pub­lished in the online journ­al Com­pu­ta­tion­al Cul­ture.

Alex S. Taylor, Jas­min Fish­er, Byron Cook, Sam­in Ish­tiaq and Nir Piter­man (2014) Mod­el­ling Bio­logy – work­ing through (in-)stabilities and fric­tions. Com­pu­ta­tion­al Cul­ture, 1 (4).

modelling_bio

Abstract: Com­pu­ta­tion­al bio­logy is a nas­cent field reli­ant on soft­ware cod­ing and mod­el­ling to pro­duce insights into bio­lo­gic­al phe­nom­ena. Extreme claims cast it as a field set to replace con­ven­tion­al forms of exper­i­ment­al bio­logy, see­ing soft­ware mod­el­ling as a (more con­veni­ent) proxy for bench-work in the wet-lab. In this art­icle, we deep­en and com­plic­ate the rela­tions between com­pu­ta­tion and sci­en­ti­fic ways of know­ing by dis­cuss­ing a com­pu­ta­tion­al bio­logy tool, BMA, that mod­els gene reg­u­lat­ory net­works. We detail the instabil­it­ies and fric­tions that sur­face when com­pu­ta­tion is incor­por­ated into sci­en­ti­fic prac­tice, fram­ing the ten­sions as part of knowing-in-progress—the prac­tic­al back and forth in work­ing things out. The work exem­pli­fies how soft­ware studies—and care­ful atten­tion to the mater­i­al­it­ies of computation—can shed light on the emer­ging sci­ences that rely on cod­ing and com­pu­ta­tion. Fur­ther, it puts to work a stand­point that sees com­pu­ta­tion as tightly entangled with forms of sci­en­ti­fic know­ing and doing, rather than a whole­sale replace­ment of them.