Case Study Title

Case Study Subtitle

Section Headings

SECTION SUBHEADING

Quotes/ Section Summary

Paragraph 1 — Main body 

Paragraph 2 — Findings

Paragraph 3 — captions etc.

Cultural Probe | 3 Weeks

Secondary Research | 4+ weeks, concurrent with other research

Subject Matter Expert (SME) interviews — ​

  • Grace Kim (Architecture, Co-housing, Participatory design

  • Dean Malmgren & Grishma Rao (IDEO Designers, Speculative design, data science, Interaction design)

  • Audrey Desjardins (Professor at the UW, Speculative design, Interaction design, Participatory design)

  • Earl Wagner (Senior Software Engineer at Google Research, Personality Theory, Nonviolent Communication, AI)

Literature Review — 

Each teammate read 15-25 academic papers/talks each week and created an excel sheet with a link to the paper and key takeaways. We then had to read 1-2 papers from the other teammate's list. At the end of the week we came together to discuss.

2

Formative Research | 1.5 Weeks

Literature review — 

 

  • Future of technology

  • Shared Living models

  • Designing for Living Together

  • Speculative/Discursive Design

Field Study dinner with Gene Hart — 

Gene Hart is Spencer's old friend. He has been a co-living advocate for the last 30 years and is the house leader for a community of 6 people in Wallingford, Seattle. We joined them for dinner to understand their experiences with intentional co-living.

1

Qualitative Survey | 1 Week

Research Qualitative Survey Design | 1 day — 

Researched best practices for designing Qualitative Surveys.

Qualitative Survey Design and testing | 2 days — 

Created qualitative survey based on research questions. Pilot tested with peers and redesigned.

Survey Deployment & Data Collection | 3 days — 

Shared the survey in our Social Media channels and received 90 responses from all over the world

Data Analysis | 2 days — 

 

Thematically mapped qualitative data and synthesized quantitative data charts.

3

4

SME interview with Tom Jenkins | 1.5 hours — 

Professor at the University of Copenhagen, his PhD dissertation explored co-housing through the lens of IoT devices and utilized cultural probes as one of the primary research methods.

Cultural probe design and testing | 3 days  — 

Creating activities for each day of the week to gather data about our participant's lives, values and thoughts. Rapidly tested it with peers and redesigned based on feedback. Sent activities for the week to the participants.

Deployment + Data Collection + interview | 14 days — 

Everyday we sent reminder emails with the activity for the week and collected data as it trickled in. At the end of the week we interviewed the participants to gain a deeper understanding of their lived experience. 

Data Synthesis | 2 days — 

Used Thematic analysis to analyze the data and triangulated it with findings from the survey and SME interviews.

Research for Cultural Probe | 1 day — 

Researched best practices for conducting remote cultural probes.

Co-design Workshop ONE + TWO  | 1 Week

5

Workshop ONE Planning + design + test + execution | 5 days — 

Designed a co-design workshop over Miro using Zoom, got feedback from professors and conducted the workshop with 5 participants.

Workshop Redesign + Test | 1 day — 

After a somewhat successful workshop we still needed more information with regards to the role of and expectations from the future technology so we decided to do another improved workshop.

Workshop TWO | 1 day — 

Conducted an hour long workshop with 5 participants over zoom using Miro board and debriefed after.

9

8

7

6

Data Synthesis via Storytelling | 3 days

Narrative design fiction — 

We each wrote a narrative to include all our research. Inspired by a story shared by our professor I recommended employing design fiction to synthesize all our research

Further design — 

Using design fiction also led us to the idea that we could employ this in our final artifacts.

Ideation ONE | 3 days

The future in three decades 2030, 2040, 2050 — 

We wanted to ideate what our future technology would do and what form it would take in the context of co-living, and how it might affect society over time. We each individually mapped out what that might look like over 3 decades and came together to discuss.

Lets stick to 2030 — 

After having done the exercise we realized that we might be out of time to do justice to all 3 decades, it also felt arbitrary to divide our attention hence we decided to show impact in one decade 2030. It was far enough into the future to have advance tech but close enough to make an informed speculation.

Ideation TWO + Designing the artifacts | 4 Weeks

Future tech, what it does and looks like — 

Based on our narrative synthesis and ideation part 1, we decided to create an AI of the future that would "solve" all the current problems associated with co-living in a way that exposes the solutionist approach of tech industry. We designed the functions of this AI and the form it would take.

Bad by design to provoke — 

We were very mindful that our design had serious loopholes based on the tarot cards of tech by the artefact group. We needed to show that we had thought of all these loop holes and it was bad design on purpose, to provoke designers to be better.

Testing + Feedback | 2 days

Peer & Professor Review, Does it provoke you? | 1 day — 

We got regular feedback throughout the process every week from our peers and professors and made changes accordingly. For our final review we created a feedback form to understand what they understand out of it and how the experience flows. Do we provoke critical discourse?

Capstone presentation event | 4 hours — 

We were able to present to industry professionals at the HCDE capstone event, as well as proactively scheduled a call with near future labs (professional discursive designers) to get feedback.

Design fiction Artifacts to provoke — News article, Podcast, Medium critique, Co-living website.

We decided to employ design fiction with 4 different artifacts as a way to explain the world of 2030, the AI design, show how it was bad design and why a little more critical thought would've improved the experience.