Exploring personas as a method to foster empathy in student IT design teams
- 167 Downloads
Empathy is seen as essential for user-centered design and thus needs to be taken into consideration in design education. Personas are a design method that is meant to promote empathy with users and are also used to foster an empathic design approach in educational settings. Empathic involvement is considered to be particularly important to overcome egocentric approaches in design, i.e. to relate to users that are dissimilar to the design team. We explored the use of personas as proxies of similar or dissimilar users in a classroom design project phase in a qualitative study of eight student design workshops with personas as user representations. We found that establishing whether a persona was similar or dissimilar to the students played an important role and lead to empathy gaps regarding users that were considered old or less technically inclined. Showing empathy in the student teams was considered risky and perspective taking was limited by the social interaction amongst the team members. We propose that research of design education would benefit from differentiating the multiple aspects that are typically conjoined in the term ‘empathy’. Furthermore raising awareness for the mechanisms of empathy should be incorporated into design and engineering education rather than relying on automatic reactions and intuition.
KeywordsEmpathy Perspective taking User-centered design Human–computer interaction Personas Design literacy
This work was funded in part by the Brigitte-Schlieben-Lange-Programm/Ministry of Science, Research, and Arts Baden-Württemberg, Germany; and in part by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (BMBF) for the project “IT&me—Konzeption, Umsetzung und Evaluation eines modellhaften multimedialen Wissenspools in der IT-Expertinnenbildung unter Berücksichtigung unterschiedlicher Lebenssituationen und Lernstrategien”, FKZ 01FP1617. The responsibility for the content lies with the authors. We appreciate the helpful comments provided by the anonymous reviewers.
- Alicke, M. D., Dunning, D. A., & Krueger, J. (2005). The self in social judgment. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Bardzell, J. (2014). Critical and cultural approaches to HCI. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital technology research (pp. 130–143). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2011). Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘11) (pp. 675–684).Google Scholar
- Bath, C. (2014a). Diffractive design. In N. Marsden & U. Kempf (Eds.), Gender-UseIT—HCI, usability und UX unter Gendergesichtspunkten (pp. 27–36). München: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
- Bath, C. (2014b). Searching for methodology. Feminist technology design in computer science. In W. Ernst & I. Horwath (Eds.), Gender in science and technology (pp. 57–78). Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
- Brown, T. (2009). Change by design—How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
- Cabrero, D. G., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., & Nocera, J. A. (2016). Re-conceptualising personas across cultures: Archetypes, stereotypes and collective personas in two locales in pastoral Namibia. In M. van der Velden, M. Strano, H. Hrachvec, J. Abdelnour Nocera, & C. Ess (Eds.), Culture, technology, communication: Common worlds, different futures? Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Culture, Technology, Communication. London, UK, 15–17 June 2016 (pp. 35–48).Google Scholar
- Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D., & Noessel, C. (2014). About face: The essentials of interaction design. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Dresing, T., Pehl, T., & Schmieder, C. (2012). Manual (on) transcription: Transcription conventions, software guides and practical hints for qualitative researchers (3rd English Edition). Marburg. http://www.audiotranskription.de/english/transcription-practicalguide.htm. Accessed 21 April 2018.
- Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2008). Perspective taking: Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 297–311). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In Handbook of social psychology.Google Scholar
- Flavell, J. H. (1992). Perspectives on perspective taking. In H. Beilin & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Piaget’s theory: Prospects and possibilities (pp. 107–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Gasparini, A. (2015). Perspective and use of empathy in design thinking. In The eight international conference on advances in computer–human interactions (ACHI’15) (pp. 49–54).Google Scholar
- Gray, C. M. (2016). It’s more of a mindset than a method”: UX practitioners’ conception of design methods. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘16) (pp. 4044–4055).Google Scholar
- Grudin, J. (2006). Why personas work: The psychological evidence. In J. Pruitt & T. Adlin (Eds.), The persona lifecycle, keeping people in mind throughout product design (pp. 642–663). San Francisco: Kaufmann Publisher.Google Scholar
- Haag, M., Weber, C., Heim, J., Marsden, N. (2016). Geschlechterkonstruktionen in der Anforderungsspezifikation von IT-Projekten. In H. Barke, J. Siegeris, J. Freiheit & D. Krefting (Eds.), Gender und IT-Projekte - Neue Wege zu digitaler Teilhabe (pp. 61–70). Opladen: Budrich UniPress.Google Scholar
- Hammond, M. M., & Kim, S. J. (2014). Rethinking empathy through literature (Vol. 31). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Higgins, E. T. (1981). Role taking and social judgment: Alternative developmental perspectives and processes. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 119–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hill, C., Haag, M., Oleson, A., Mendez, C., Marsden, N., Sarma, A., & Burnett, M. (2017). Gender-Inclusiveness Personas vs. Stereotyping: Can we have it both ways? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘17) (pp. 6658–6671) http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025609.
- Kelley, C. M. (1999). Subjective experience as basis of “objective” judgments: Effects of past experience on judgments of difficulty. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 515–536). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Marsden, N., & Haag, M. (2016). Stereotypes and politics: Reflections on Personas. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘16) (pp. 4017–4031).Google Scholar
- Smeenk, W., Tomico, O., & van Turnhout, K. (2016). A systematic analysis of mixed perspectives in empathic design: Not one perspective encompasses all. International Journal of Design, 10(2), 31–48.Google Scholar
- Thieme, A., Vines, J., Wallace, J., Clarke, R. E., Slovák, P., McCarthy, J., et al. (2014). Enabling empathy in health and care: Design methods and challenges. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 139–142).Google Scholar
- Wright, P., & McCarthy, J. (2008). Empathy and experience in HCI. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence.Google Scholar
- Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1 and 2, pp. 591–632). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Zhang, X., & Wakkary, R. (2014). Understanding the role of designers’ personal experiences in interaction design practice. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’14) (pp. 895–904).Google Scholar