Abstract
Sherry Turkle points out in her book, Evocative Objects, that we often consider objects as useful or aesthetic, but rarely count them as our companions or as provocations to our thoughts (2007). Indeed, according to distributed cognition theory, our cognitive activities are considerably influenced by and also a product of our interactions with external stimuli, such as everyday objects. Within this vast category of external stimuli, we can also include our indoor places: the architectural three-dimensional space, where we spend a large part of our days, doing various activities, using numerous objects, and interacting with people. With the advent of “smarter” homes and the Internet of Things (IoT), space becomes a crucial factor that, together with all other objects, influence peoples’ thinking. We are particularly interested in the kind of thinking that can be labeled as “reflective thinking” as a conceptual way of thinking that enables the re-consideration of experiences and actions. Reflective thinking also as a distributed cognitive process depends not only to the individual mental process, but also it is closely related to the external stimuli (e.g. Hutchins, Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, 1995, [1], Dewey, How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C. Heath & Co Publishers, USA, 1933, [2]). In this book chapter, we present a relational approach to the design of such places considering the social IoT (SIoT) as a technical enabler. We do this by specifically focusing on “reflective thinking” and how it is situated in relation to computer-enhanced and smart places. We will describe how reflective thinking is related to people’s activities and smart objects within that place. Further, we provide models intended to clarify the relationships between the external factors that influence reflective thinking in a space, and how those relationships make a space a Place (Cresswell, International encyclopedia of human geography, 8, 169–177. Elsevier, Oxford, 2009, [3]). Finally, we provide an example in the form of a narrative, to show how might an SIoT-enabled place look like in prototyping lab of a design school as a very specific place. In short, the aim of our work as presented in this chapter is to spark a conversation and discussion about how HCI/Interaction Design can engage in designing of places that supports reflection using Social IoT. In doing so, we suggest that a central dimension in design of such places should be based on the study of relationships among involved components: people, their activities, and objects. We also suggest, as a theoretical contribution, that Social IoT is not only a technical platform, but rather should be understood as a relational technology that enables new kinds of places for reflection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Health & Co Publishers.
Cresswell, T. (2009) Place. In N. Thrift & R. Kitchen (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (Vol. 8, pp. 169–177). Oxford: Elsevier.
Ashton, K. (2009) That ‘Internet of Things’ Thing: In the real world, things matter more than ideas. RFID Journal, from http://www.rfidjournal.
Robbins, H., Giaccardi, E., & Karana, E. (2016). Traces as an approach to design for focal things and practices. In Proceedings of Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI’16), 19.
Stolterman, E., Jung, H., Ryan, W., & Siegel, M. A. (2013). Device landscapes: A new challenge to interaction design and HCI research. Archives of Design Research, 26(2), 7–33.
Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G., & Nitti, M. (2012). The Social Internet of Things (SIoT)—when social networks meet the Internet of Things: Concept, architecture and network characterization. Computer Networks, 56(16), 3594–3608.
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2014). From “smart objects” to “social objects”: The next evolutionary step of the internet of things. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(1), 97–105.
Dalton, N. S., Schnädelbach, H., & Wiberg, M. (Eds.). (2016). Architecture and interaction: Human-computer interaction in time and place. Springer.
Fleck, R. (2012). Designing for Reflection, Sustainability and Simplicity. Presented at: Workshop on Simple, Sustainable living, (CHI’12), Austin, Texas, USA.
Baumer, E., Khovanskaya, V., Matthews, M., Reynolds, L., Schwanda Sosik, V., & Gay, G. (2014). Reviewing reflection: On the use of reflection in interactive system design. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’14) (pp. 93–102). New York: ACM.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196.
Rogers, Y. (1997). A Brief Introduction to the Distributed Cognition. Retrieved January 11, 2017, from http://mcs.open.ac.uk/yr258/papers/dcog/dcog-brief-intro.pdf.
Kirsh, D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73, 31–68.
Adams, F. (2010). Embodied cognition. Phenomenology and Cognition, 9(4), 619–628.
Venkatesh, V. (1996). Computers and other interactive technologies for home. Communications of the ACM, 39, 12.
Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the twenty-first century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104.
Weiser, M., & Brown, S. (1996). Designing Calm Technology, Xerox Parc, from http://www.ubiq.com/weiser/calmtech/calmtech.htm.
Wiberg, M. (2010). Interactive textures for architecture and landscaping: Digital elements and technologies. Hershey, PA: Engineering Science Reference.
Wiberg, M. (2015). Interaction Design Meets Architectural Thinking. ACM Interactions, March + April 2015 (pp. 60–63).
Wiltse, H., & Stolterman, E. (2010). Architectures of interaction: an architectural perspective on digital experience. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: (NordiCHI ‘10). New York, NY, USA: ACM (pp. 821–824).
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Shlomo, A. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
Ghajargar, M. (2017). Toward intelligent environments: Supporting reflection with smart objects in the home. ACM Interactions, 24(4), 60–62.
Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is. MIT Press.
Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: A framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’06) (pp. 437–446).
Harrison, S., & Dourish, P. (1996) Re-place-ing space: The roles of place and space in collaborative systems. In The Proceeding of ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘96) (pp. 67–76).
Cresswell, T. (2014). Place: An introduction. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Ltd.
Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the geography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74(2), 279–297.
Hallnäs, L., & Redström, J. (2001). Slow technology, designing for reflection. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(3), 201–212.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Odom, W., Banks, R., Durrant, A., Kirk, D., & Pierce, J. (2012). Slow technology: critical reflection and future directions. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’12) (pp. 816–817).
Bødker, S. (1991) Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. CRC Press.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. The MIT Press.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2017). Activity theory as a framework for human—technology interaction research. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25(1), 3–5.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Turkle, S. (2007). Evocative objects: Things we think with. MIT Press.
Ploderer, B., Reitberger, W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Gemert-Pijnen, J. (2014). Social interaction and reflection for behavior change. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(7), 1667–1676.
Bakker, S., Hoven, E., & Eggen, B. (2015). Peripheral interaction: Characteristics and considerations. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19(1), 239–254.
Ghajargar, M., Wiberg, M., & Stolterman, E. (2018). Designing IoT systems that support reflective thinking: A relational approach. International Journal of Design, 12(1), 21–35.
Ghajargar, M., & Wiberg, M. (2018). Thinking with interactive artifacts: Reflection as a concept for design outcomes. Design Issues, 34(2), 48–63 (MIT Press).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ghajargar, M., Wiberg, M., Stolterman, E. (2019). Designing Places for Reflection. In: Soro, A., Brereton, M., Roe, P. (eds) Social Internet of Things. Internet of Things. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94659-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94659-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94657-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94659-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)