RGS-IBG 2014 Call for Artifacts:
Scrapheap Challenge for Everyday Security
Session Organisers: Lizzie Coles-Kemp (Royal Holloway University of London) and Debi Ashenden (Cranfield University).
This session will share and explore the design and evaluation of artifacts used in innovative research methods to co-produce with communities our understandings of ‘everyday’ security. The term ‘everyday security ‘ relates to security achieved by people on their own terms without institutional intervention to protect aspects of space and place. The session will offer an opportunity to present these research methods in a variety of formats and will facilitate an open discussion.
Background
Notions of everyday security have resonance across several disciplines ranging from studies of identity in social and cultural geography (Hoogensen and Rottem, 2004, Massey 2004), to sociologies of the everyday (e.g. Shove et al. 2012, Lefebvre 1971, Blanchot 1987, De Certeau 2011) and theories of relationship maintenance (e.g Zimmerman 2010, Bhandari and Bardzell 2008 and Kjeldskov et al. 2005). Everyday security has a particularly sharp focus in the area of technology design where security technologies are primarily still regarded as imputing a set of paternalistic values not necessarily shared by the communities that use these technologies (Lacy and Prince 2013, Coles-Kemp and Ashenden 2012). Danish HCI researchers Niels Mathiasen and Susanne Bodker (Mathiasen and Bodker 2011) went further and linked notions of the everyday with wider feelings of ontological security, arguing that if everyday security practices are to be supported through artifacts (digital or otherwise) designers need to better understand security for the individual in terms of ontological security.
Coles-Kemp and Ashenden (2012) discovered that the more sympathetic research methods are to the everyday lives of participants, the more willing participants are to engage in data collection activities and the higher the quality of the data. This is particularly true for communities that feel excluded or disadvantaged in research participation. In particular methods such as cartoons, video, music and collage have proved particularly powerful methods of engagement, data collection and analysis.
Call for Artifacts
Contributions are requested in the form of a rich visual description of the artifact and an explanatory abstract. We welcome contributions from geography, design, security or any other related areas. The artifact might be used as a research tool, engagement tool or as a visualisation of an insight or concept etc. There is no limit to the format of artifacts but each contribution should consist of a rich visual description of the artifact, together with an explanatory abstract. Contributions could focus on, but are not limited to:
· Ways of engaging with research participants
· Approaches to data collection
· Tools for data analysis
Format
The session will be run using a World Café format where participants will move round the room discussing each artifact with its creator. Each selected collection of visual description, artifact and abstract will be displayed. Feedback will be given both verbally and in the completion of postcards. The feedback will focus on how the artifact might be evaluated in terms of its research function and its form. The postcards will be used to create a wall collage of the narrative of the session.
Please email a 250 word abstract and visual description of your proposed artifact by the 14th February to Debi Ashenden (d.m.ashenden@cranfield.ac.uk) and Lizzie Coles-Kemp (lizzie.coles-kemp@rhul.ac.uk). Your proposal should describe the following:
(1) What the artifact is (research tool, concept, explanatory model, visualization of an insight etc)
(2) Key features of the artifact
(3) The intended usage or purpose
(4) Why it is interesting to this conference
Please indicate any technical or spatial requirements for your artifact (power, screen, table space etc).
References:
Lacy, M. Prince D. The Future Of Digital Disrupters: Re-thinking the Digital Divide (workshop report), 2013.
Ashenden, D.M., and Coles-Kemp, L. Community-centric engagement: lessons learned from privacy awareness intervention design, Designing Interactive Secure Systems, Workshop at British HCI, 2012.
Bardzell, J., and Bardzell, S. Intimate interactions: On- line representation and software of the self. Interactions xv 5, ACM Press (2008), 11-15.
Hoogensen, Gunhild, and Svein Vigeland Rottem. “Gender identity and the subject of security.” Security Dialogue 35.2 (2004): 155-171.
Massey, Doreen. “Geographies of responsibility.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 86.1 (2004): 5-18.
Shove, Elizabeth, Mika Pantzar, and Matt Watson. The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Sage, 2012.
Lefebvre, Henri (1971) Everyday Life in the Modern World trns. Sacha Rabinovitch, Allen Lane, London.
Blanchot, Maurice, and Susan Hanson. “Everyday speech.” Yale French Studies 73 (1987): 12-20.
de Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life , trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press
Zimmerman, Mary K. “Theorizing Inequality: Comparative Policy Regimes, Gender, and Everyday Lives.” The Sociological Quarterly 54.1 (2013): 66-80.
Vetere, Frank, et al. “Mediating intimacy: designing technologies to support strong-tie relationships.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2005.
Mathiasen, Niels Raabjerg, and Susanne Bødker. “Experiencing security in interaction design.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2011.