MRx as a Participatory Platform

Digital Creativity

ISSN: 1462-6268 (Print) 1744-3806 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ndcr20

x

MR as a participatory platform Nassim JafariNaimi x

To cite this article: Nassim JafariNaimi (2015): MR as a participatory platform, Digital Creativity To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2015.1100122

Published online: 08 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ndcr20 Download by: [108.234.93.213]

Date: 08 December 2015, At: 13:59

Digital Creativity, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2015.1100122

MRx as a participatory platform Nassim JafariNaimi School of Literature, Media, and Communication, Georgia Institute of Technology

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

[email protected]

Abstract

1 Introduction

Facilitating and supporting various modes of social interaction has been part of Mixed Reality (MRx)1 design experiments and discourse over the past twenty years. But what vision of social interaction is sought and advanced through Mixed Reality environments? In this paper, I identify two dominant ways that social interaction is envisioned in MRx designs, broadly construed as material and political, and illustrated through a series of examples. I further draw on them to highlight the potentials, boundaries, and limitations of each with regards to the kinds of social interactions that are sought and cultivated through the integration of digital media on physical space. I suggest that as MR becomes mainstream, it is important to go beyond these visions to consider whether and how MRx environments might connect with the economic, social, and cultural specificity of local sites to meaningfully serve the always evolving social needs and purposes of their communities.

Design arts such as architecture, contemporary arts and interaction design have witnessed an emerging concern with the social (and thus ethical and political) alongside the functional, aesthetic or expressive in recent years. This concern manifests in both the processes and products of design. Collaborative methods such as participatory and codesign are taken up in design practices ranging from city planning to digital technologies with the aim of transforming the design process into a more democratic one. In parallel, the outcomes of design activities such as products, services, processes are judged in their ability to give voice, encourage participation or facilitate some form of social interaction. Consider, for example, artistic practices that invite viewers to participate in the making of the work of art (e.g. Bishop 2006; Frieling 2008); the range of participatory, collaborative media such as web 2.0 and social media; and initiatives that seek to promote grassroots solutions to community problems by empowering and supporting local communities and practices as exemplified in a range of projects under the umbrella of Design for Social Innovation (e.g. http://www.desis-network.org/). These practices are varied: rooted in multiple histories, scholarships and philosophical orientations on what constitutes ideal modes of participation or favorable forms of social interaction. Nonetheless, they share a common theme in that they find their beginnings or purposes in fostering democratic forms of social interaction.

Keywords: mixed reality, social media, social interaction, participation, locative media, civic media, democracy, Community Informatics, Social Computing

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Digital Creativity

JafariNaimi

More than thirty years of research on networking technologies has shown that the relationship between communication and community is broad and complex. This is manifest in research areas such as Community Informatics, Social Computing or Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) deeply rooted in interpretive and pragmatic approaches (e.g. Wenger 1999; Kling, Rosenbaum, and Sawyer 2005; Suchman 2007). This research has challenged the notion that social interaction and community are unconditionally improved with access and use of digital technologies. Indeed, in spite of the proliferation of technologies and tools that promise to connect us there are reports of increased rather than decreased disconnectedness and disintegration of communities. Many attribute this sense of crisis in community and communication to the broad availability and usage of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in general and social media in particular (e.g. Putnam 2000; Carr 2008; Turkle 2012). In the light of this diminished sense of communication and community associated with or unresolved by the adoption and use of ICTs, location-based technologies can be seen as part of the solution (e.g. Struppek 2006; Schroeter 2012; Carroll et al. 2015). Here, it is noted that ICTs typically do not take into account their physical surroundings, particularly the unique characteristics that have traditionally constituted proximate social interaction and a sense of solidarity with local communities. At the same time, physical space and geographic social ties remain an important factor for local communities as exemplified in the concept of Placemaking (e.g. Project for Public Places, http://www.pps.org/reference/what_is_ placemaking/; for intellectual roots of the concept see, Jacobs 1961; Whyte 1980). Locative media that enable people to share and access locally relevant information in situ add a digital dimension to shared spaces such as plazas, public squares, parks or community gardens. In doing so, they have the potential to change how people connect to their local environment and local community by creating new channels of communication and collectives, raising awareness, changing perceptions and reconnecting people to local places and

local communities in ways that could potentially foster new modes of civic action and participation (e.g. Foth 2008; Schroeter and Foth. 2009; Dalsgaard and Halskov 2010; Salim and Haque 2015). MRx is a subset of locative media that has been part of this discourse in recent years (Rouse et al., 2015a). While perhaps not explicit in the technical discussions of MR, the theme of social interaction (or variations of it such as location-based social networking, giving voice, connecting communities or participation) has been present in artistic and academic applications of MRx.2 In 2011, for example, the German Green Party’s Berlin chapter launched a mobile app that enabled people to see videos linked to political billboards throughout the city specifically related to the city’s environmental issues (Kirkpatrick 2001). People were encouraged to comment on these locations and engage in exchanges with the party on specific issues related to those locations. MRx has also been put forward as a means of political dissent. For example, AR Occupy Wall Street (2011) is an MR application that was developed during the 2011 Occupy Wallstreet movement in the United States, enabling users to post political banners in locations that were closed to protesters such as the New York Stock Exchange. The above are examples of a range of MRx applications and experiments in the past fifteen years broadly seeking to connect individuals, foster collective action or facilitate social interaction. As expected, these applications advance a diversity of visions about what forms of social interaction are desired, ideal or worth cultivating. But are these applications part of the solution to the problems of communication and community? Or, do they instead suppress communication and further distance and disintegrate communities? Answering these questions calls for a closer look at the design of current experiments, given that such technology has the capacity to deeply transform everyday social experiences and practices. This is particularly significant if we embrace the “spatiality” of justice: the idea that space or geography is an integral and formative component of justice itself (Soja 2010, 1). 2

form new alliances and question common beliefs or practices; and to facilitate encounters as a way to challenge hierarchical social and organizational structures and their practices. In so doing, it renders MRx in political terms. Both positions are described below with illustrative examples. In the subsequent section, I show how these two visions surface some of the potentials, as well as boundaries and limitations, of MRx in its ability to facilitate social interaction.

But what vision of social interaction is sought and advanced through MRx designs? In this paper, I illustrate the significance of engaging with this question by posing it to a range of MRx applications with varied visions of what social interaction is and how it may be fostered by technology. I further draw on these cases to outline a set of issues that are particularly of significance for consideration as MR becomes mainstream. Three parts follow this introductory section. In the subsequent section (part 2), I survey some recent designs, tracing the modes of social interaction that they advance. In part 3, I build on this survey as the basis to draw out some of the limitations, challenges and issues that the aforementioned visions raise. In part 4, I posit that more nuanced theories of (democratic) social interaction can inform and form the design of social MR; while proposing MRx itself as a site of discovery and inquiry about how social interaction is initiated, developed and sustained.

2.1 Networks and crowds On the side of computing, the case for embedding and accessing information in situ is commonly made in the technical sense of providing nodes of connectivity.3 In this model, it is argued that location-based media in general, and MR in particular, support social interaction similar to other networking technologies such as the internet: for extending digital channels of communication to physical locations. Every corner of a city is envisioned as a hub for information dissemination and access, transforming the city into a network. The social dimension is broadly envisioned as the ability of crowds to supply data, services and opinions in various forms such as tags, comments, votes, and ideas. Site specificity is manifest in the sense that geographically relevant data are made available, local (informational) needs are addressed or data are collected from local crowds. When used in the context of MR or locative media, this concept is modified to include data from local crowds or the presentation of crowdsourced data in location. Crowdsourcing based on urban screens is one set of applications that builds on this model (e.g. Hosio et al. 2014). Here, urban displays are envisioned as two-way communication channels for crowd sourced-data, taking advantage of a real world context for collecting and sharing information. The research in this area is predominantly focused on content production; means of publishing information on a display such as through Twitter, SMS, or other social media; or awareness and behavior around the displays (Memarovic, Langheinrich, and Alt 2012).

2 Tracing the theme of social in MRx The approaches toward facilitating social interaction in MRx are diverse with subtle differences that warrant careful consideration on a case-bycase basis. At the same time, finding similarities and mapping thematic connections of these cases has the potential to reveal patterns and highlight what may be broadly missing or underrepresented in mainstream discourse. In this paper, I propose a grouping of design cases based on visions of social interaction that are central to their design. More specifically, I illustrate that in contemporary experiments the social is often framed in either material or political—broadly construed. One understanding of social that animates many MRx experiments is the possibility of connection and information exchange through urban networks; and the potential of crowds to contribute data in various forms to be then aggregated and used for multiple (local) purposes. In doing so, it renders it in material terms. Another common understanding positions the social as the capacity to voice individual and collective narratives; to 3

Digital Creativity

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

MRx as a participatory platform

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Digital Creativity

JafariNaimi

Most of the applications developed with this point of view are at the experimental level with rather short times of deployment. For example, Game of Words was a gamification strategy deployed on a series of five displays in to collect a set of keywords describing those locations (Goncalves et al. 2014). Vote with Your Feet deployed in Brisbane, Australia described as a hyperlocal polling tool with a tangible interface asking a series of yes/no questions about local affairs from passersby and people waiting for the bus (Steinberger, Foth, and Alt 2014). One application that has been deployed at a broader scale is Give a Minute (2010). Give a Minute was launched in Chicago in November 2010 and subsequently extended to several other cities. Developed by the media design firm Local Projects, Give a Minute (2010) is positioned as a digital town hall meeting but one that is more accessible and efficient, enabling citizens to connect and share their ideas anywhere and in as little time as one minute. Through signs and billboards distributed in the city, the project invites citizens to respond to an issue or question using Twitter as the main channel of communication.4 The campaign is promoted through transportation networks, newspapers and public billboards, soliciting ideas from citizens about strategies that affect how they navigate the city in the future. The project’s website describes it in the following manner:

an understanding of social interaction as connectivity, Give a Minute takes its starting point in the recognition of disconnect between city officials and citizens. This disconnect is framed as lack of time, access and interest, and seemingly overcome through technological means. Give a Minute is representative of a class of applications that seek to transcend the limitations of time and space, connecting individuals and groups networking and crowdsourcing mechanisms.5 In this model, MR may be regarded as an extension of the networking infrastructure. The consideration of social interaction is left at the technical level, broadly understood as connectivity and remaining agnostic to specific applications and their social and cultural setting. 2.2 Voices and encounters On the side of media arts, the interest in MR finds its origins in a broader interest in interpretive and critical engagements. Two interrelated aims are often cited: Giving voice and fostering encounters (e.g. Paulos and Goodman 2004; Dalsgaard and Halskov 2010). MR enables the recording and retelling of interpretative commentary about place, such as street corners, pathways and communities that are generally hidden or underrepresented in the mainstream media or popular narratives of these locations. It is also a suitable medium for fostering new modes of encounter or even political dissent, especially ones that challenge common practices or foster critical reflection. There have been a variety of applications in this area, among them those that aim to facilitate new modes of expression and interpretation, giving voice to individuals or narratives that are at the margin; as well as applications that aim to foster encounters among individuals and communities that are otherwise isolated from one another. The central themes in these applications are generally aligned with those of contemporary participatory art practices. Here, we find a strong emphasis on ceding authorial control and inviting collective participation with the conviction that collaborative creativity will both “emerge from and to produce, a more positive an non-hierarchical social model.” (Bishop 2006, 12)

Give a Minute is a new kind of public dialogue. It only takes a minute to think about improving your city, but your ideas can make a world of difference. Give a Minute is an opportunity for you to think out loud; address old problems with fresh thinking; and to enter into dialogue with change-making community leaders. (2010) The dialogue envisioned by Give a Minute is minimal, with a focus on quick provocations for feedback and ideas. Questions such as “Hey Chicago, What would encourage you to walk, bike and take Chicago Transit Authority more often?” are posed. Viewers are encouraged to respond to these questions with the aim of informing the decision-makers in the city. Aligned with 4

MRx as a participatory platform

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Digital Creativity

Figure 1. Yellow Arrow. (a) T2PP6 BY NEW612. Elizabeth2bst2bat2bprince2bst, Manhattan, NY. My girlfriend and I had our first date here 2 and a half years ago. It’s Cafe Habana and it’s still one of our favorite places. (b) 4NBF BY SKAT. 500 Cortland Avenue, San+Francisco, CA. This library doesnt make it into the tourist guidebooks. But go in and look. Its a relic of SFs 1930s civic optimism. Very cool. (c) EATD BY JSHAPES. Avenida Michoacan Y Vicente Suarez, Mexico City, Mexico. The market bldg in La Condesa is one of the my favorites in the city. Clean curves embody the best aspects of Modernism. Images reprinted with permission from Brian House (http://brianhouse.net/works/yellow_arrow/).

Yellow Arrow is one of the classic examples in this area created by Christopher Allen, Michael Counts, Brian House, and Jesse Shapins (Figure 1). Its aim was to “give voice” to hidden stories and interpretations of a city, referred to by some as a platform for a kind of geographic blogging. Originally introduced in New York, a series of arrow-shaped yellow stickers were placed on street signs, storefronts, buildings and monuments, each displaying a unique code. Viewers could post and retrieve messages, tagging locations with poetic or informational snippets with the aim of sharing and experiencing the secret life of the city. The stickers were regarded as an opportunity for people to shift their and others’ relations to the urban space by engaging with those who experience the same spaces in ways that are both similar and different. The collection of annotations sought to re-imagine the urban landscape as a living site of reflection and storytelling about the many ways that it interacts with individual and collective histories and stories, while at the same time enabling new ways of touring and experiencing the city. Michael Counts (2007), the head of Counts Media, which organized and deployed the Yellow Arrows, explains:

world. I became particularly interested in the idea that there should really be as many maps of the world as there are individuals or perspectives – for instance, your map of New York, based upon your interests would likely be very different than my map, based upon my interests in New York.6 The related aim of fostering encounters for critical reflection is manifest in a recent installation titled Hole in Space (Oakland Redux) by artists Chang and Gurantz. These artists recreated the 1980s art installation by Galloway and Rabinowitz titled Hole in Space. The latter (original) installation, which ran for three days in November of 1980, connected two locations through a life-size screen with the aim of understanding how space, time, and the body might intersect on the surface of the screen (Paulsen 2013, 100).7 This installation connected the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York City, and “The Broadway” department store located in the open air Shopping Center in Century City, Los Angeles through a life-size screen. Viewers’ interactions progressed from the surprise in discovery, to the drama of intentional rendez-vous, to the encounters of loved ones who had not seen each other for many years (Frieling 2008, 150).

We ultimately found that what we were really creating was a new and subjective map of the 5

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Digital Creativity

JafariNaimi

3 Broadening theoretical and practical engagement with social in MRx

Moving beyond studies of time and motion centered on transcending physical distance, A Hole in Space (Oakland Redux) manifests how MRx is sometimes envisioned and employed to foster encounters and critical reflections. A Hole in Space (Oakland Redux) seeks to highlight social and cultural divides and be a point of encounter and reflection on the vast social and cultural distance between two geographically close neighborhoods in Oakland, CA (Burke 2015). In this experiment, artists explore the potential of MRx to be a starting point for conversation about such issues; and even to constitute a remedy by getting people to talk to those with whom they normally do not have a point of contact. Artist Chang:

The examples in part 2 are by no means exhaustive of the range of ways that MR has been positioned in relation to social interaction. However, they are illustrative of two interpretations of social interaction that are dominant in MRx designs: The first has a broadly technological focus and posits social interaction in terms of extending networks of communication to enable crowd-sourced data and applications. In so doing, it renders social interaction in material terms. The second views social interaction in political and critical terms, focusing on giving voice and fostering critical reflection with the aim of challenging dominant structures of power and facilitating more egalitarian, even non-hierarchical social forms. In what follows, I first look at the above interpretations and discuss how each may be regarded as a productive place for opening MR to a critical perspective. The material interpretation of MR, I argue, positions it as an extension of networking technologies, opening up consideration of MR as infrastructure with the ability to both fragment and recombine the social fabric of neighborhoods, communities and cities. In doing so, it foregrounds questions related to access and equity. The political interpretation of MR as an instrument to give voice and facilitate critical reflection positions it as a medium to bring marginalized voices, themes and stories to the center of attention while at the same time decentering those themes, stories and voices that are most common, powerful, or mainstream. In doing so, it foregrounds questions related to framing, transparency and (digital) literacy.

My greatest fantasy of this piece is that two people that normally wouldn’t talk to each other would enjoy the interaction so much that they’d say, “Are you walking by here tomorrow night?” Cause I am, and I’ll wait for you. Let’s talk. (Orenstein 2015) The details of how interactions unfolded in reaction to the screens are still not documented. However, according to a report by Natalie Orenstein, overall the installation received much less enthusiasm than its original counterpart. It also evoked some skepticism from everyday passersby about its nature and function, raising concerns related to privacy and surveillance (Orenstein 2015). In fact, the artists included a statement at each site with explanations such as “This is not surveillance,” “See without judgment,” and, “Say hello to your neighbor,” along with an email address in order to address concerns (Figure 2).8 Yellow Arrow and Hole in Space (Oakland Redux) are illustrative of a class of MR applications that seek to capture, collect and share diverse voices and/or provide the occasions for encounter with others who are the same and different. The aims of open interpretation, critical reflection, encounter and political dissent continue to be seen throughout the multiple variations of artistic practices that employ MR in some form.

3.1 Fragmentations and recombinations By emphasizing networks and crowds, the first dominant mode of thinking about social presented here renders it in material terms. From this perspective, MR extends the ubicomp vision of a smart city, one that facilitates communication and creates efficiencies through provision of multiple nodes of access throughout. Moreover, this 6

MRx as a participatory platform

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Digital Creativity

Figure 2. Hole in Space (Oakland Redux). Images reprinted with permission from Maya Gurantz (http://mayagurantz.com).

view carries the web 2.0 enthusiasm about collective tagging, crowdsourcing and other similar ways of collecting information to tap into the power of crowds with the aim of bringing even more efficiency in collecting and sharing information in location (Surowieki 2004; Howe 2008; Shirky 2008). From this perspective, most applications remain agnostic to specific applications) and their social and cultural setting, with site specificity reduced to local relevance of local information. When positioned as nodes of connectivity, we might characterize MR as an extension of the networking infrastructure. This characterization can be a rich place for the understanding and criticism of MR in general and MRx in particular, connecting it to the field of Science and Technology Studies with its extensive body of scholarship that explores infrastructures and infrastructuring. Not unlike other infrastructures that have preceded it, such as railroads or highways, MR provides the material conditions for new modes of connectivity. However, characterization of MR as infrastructure does not render it neutral. Take for example, how a new highway system provides access to new locations and is a source of economic growth for some areas or facilitates mobility for goods, workers and consumers. At the same time, extending a new highway system disrupts and displaces neighborhoods, communities and patterns of movement. In doing so, it fragments

and recombines both spatial and social arrangements. In a similar way, we may consider MR as a new infrastructure that intertwines onto the fabric of the city to fragment and recombine spatial and social arrangements (Mitchel, 2000). In other words, by viewing MR/MRx as infrastructure, we might begin to tease out the ways in which it interacts with existing infrastructures and social practices. As Mitchel notes: When a new type of network infrastructure emerges, it is not deployed across homogeneous terrain; it is overlaid on a spatial pattern that has developed in response to its predecessors. Typically, by creating new relationships among existing activities and introducing new activities, new network infrastructures produce significant transformations of such existing patterns. (Mitchel, 2000, 6) Connecting the above to an MRx project such as Give a Minute entails going beyond understanding it as simply an application and instead analyzing it as a form of infrastructure. In doing so, we first and foremost recognize that infrastructures are embedded in other social and technological structures.9 With this understanding, we might ask how this new infrastructure relates to the existing terrain and other infrastructures already in place and in what ways the introduction of this new infrastructure disrupts and reinforces existing patterns of connectivity and interaction. 7

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Digital Creativity

JafariNaimi

makers responses to citizen input or town hall meetings focused on specific issues that are raised) is dependent on the same central entity that initiated it. Furthermore, by framing the problem in term of lack of time and access, Give a Minute privileges transient and lightweight communicative practices over more substantive ones that foster and develop meaningful social interactions over time. There is little attention to individuals’ experience the system and interpersonal interactions of the contributors beyond ensuring participation such as providing incentives for participation or interface usability. Give a Minute, not unlike many other crowdsourcing applications, is “social” only in its ability to collect and aggregate the many tags, comments or other information for purposes and uses that may or may not be transparent to the contributors (JafariNaimi 2012). From this perspective, individuals are considered as identical building blocks that take part in the making of a large repository of information by contributing data in various forms of tags, opinions or feedback: fragments of information recombined through digital algorithms for various, often utilitarian, purposes. By reducing sociality to connectivity, this view risks overlooking some important features and ends of social interaction such as political dissent, commitment, responsibility and learning. Even if we understand MRx in solely material terms, there is much more to take into account from the standpoint of social as we envision and implement such technology to be integrated meaningfully and effectively into everyday practices.

For example, in Give a Minute, we might observe the location of informational hubs and their potential effect on the flow of traffic, the demand for nearby businesses and the patterns of engagement with other modes of providing feedback to city officials. Moreover, and transcending the rhetoric of connectivity, we might query the ways that the application replaces other ways of connecting and feedback by citizens such as town halls and public forums. While far from perfect, these settings are differently configured in their relationship to citizen participation with their own rhythms, patterns of work and accountability. Replacing face-to-face meetings with technology changes the manner and means of access (in this case to the local government) and thus also raises the question of impacts on equity. For example, while this technology may make it more accessible to provide feedback for those who do not have time, it does make it less accessible for those who may not be as able or savvy with the use of technology. It is outside of the scope of this paper to cover all the nuances in relation to understanding MRx as infrastructure; however, the connections above show how such an understanding can open up MRx to a productive critique as it relates to social interaction (Ribes and Baker 2007; Scott 1998; Star 2002).10 Complementing the issues surfaced by understanding MR as infrastructure, we might also engage with each application’s specific framing of problems. Posing the question “How are people’s relationships established, developed and sustained within and through the mixed reality space?” might serve as an additional guide to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in response from a social interaction perspective. As noted in the previous section, Give a Minute frames the problem in terms of disconnect between city officials and citizens due to a lack of time, access and interest. The interaction is initiated by a centralized entity with multiple nodes of access in the city, that in its current form, there is no provision for citizens to build on and develop this interaction. Maintaining and sustaining this interaction (such as decision-

3.2 Centering and marginalizing Emphasizing the themes of giving voice and empowerment, the second dominant mode of thinking about social in relation to MRx renders it as political. Indeed, many MRx applications are envisioned as platforms to empower individuals and communities by giving voice to multiple perspectives and fostering critical encounters. Here, the emphasis is often put on bringing marginalized voices or less salient narratives to the center of attention as a way to change perceptions, challenge existing narratives or practices or 8

sition of texts, images and audio onto physical spaces that should be critically “read” with consideration to their histories as well as existing socio-political status, coupled with the ways that the movements in space and the authorship and reading of these experiences is crafted and managed by artists and designers. Together, the issues of framing, literacy and transparency not only challenge the desirability of a flat, non-hierarchical social organization, but also the very possibility of such an organization. For example, we might investigate how the vision behind the application and its technical/ spatial makeup determine who the audiences are, the manner and character of participation and the boundaries of legitimate responses. In doing so, we might observe that while such applications intend to challenge existing power structures, they run the risk of reinforcing them or creating new and perhaps more hidden forms of power. Complementing the above and in parallel to the previous example we might ask: How are people’s relationships established, developed and sustained within and through the mixed reality space in Yellow Arrow and Hole in Space (Oakland Redux)? Not unlike Give a Minute, the interaction with Yellow Arrow can be initiated by anybody who might learn about the project through its website (or at events in the city where the yellow arrows are distributed). People can simply record audio and place arrows at their desired locations. However, beyond providing people with the initial premise and the yellow arrows, there is no provision for citizens to build on, develop and sustain the interaction. This characteristic also highlights the unpredictable and sometimes random character of participation and thus content in these applications. In the quest to encourage diverse points of view, such designs rely upon a considerable degree of subjective involvement. The nature of individual contributions and the overall tone and substance of the collective depends on the experience and expertise of its participants, and their willingness and ability to contribute. Take, as an example, how Hole in Space (Oakland Redux) was envisioned. The possibility of forming friendships and collectives

provide alternative and critical ways of thinking and conceptualizing the relationships with, within and through a city or built environment. Considering the social, a non-hierarchical structure is imagined and strived for where all voices are captured and weighted as equally important and valid. Put differently, the political interpretation of MR as an instrument to give voice and facilitate critical reflection positions it as a medium to bring marginalized voices, themes and stories to the center of attention. In doing so, this perspective also raises a multiplicity of questions and issues that are worthy of consideration, among them issues of framing, transparency and (digital) literacy. For example, in the context of Yellow Arrow, the issue of framing manifests itself in the ways that the artist engages the audience and solicits responses. Yellow Arrow seeks personal and subjective information about specific locations, adding a layer of cultural commentary onto space. While this is an intriguing framing, it also creates a predisposition, encouraging certain responses over others. Examples of alternative framings of the same process that showcase the distinctions include South Harbor Voices, an initiative by the NGO Urban Task Force in Copenhagen, which used the Yellow Arrow concept to solicit comments for mayoral candidates on urban revitalization, and a series of alternative trips in Boston titled Urban Adventours curated by a local bike company that used the Yellow Arrow concept to direct cyclists along designated routes.11 This is an intriguing idea and one that could perhaps serve as the starting point for a humanistic engagement with technology. However, the majority of applications with this perspective stop at the capturing and sharing of voices and leave it to audiences’ interpretation and judgment which narratives and perspectives to engage. This characteristic raises issues of literacy and transparency that have been discussed in other digital media forms: the challenge to see clearly the ways that media shape perceptions of the world (Jenkins 2006, 15; See also JafariNaimi and Meyers 2015). In the context of MR, transparency poses an even bigger challenge given the juxtapo9

Digital Creativity

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

MRx as a participatory platform

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Digital Creativity

JafariNaimi

civic capacity or the will and the way to participate in collective action and problem solving. There is indeed no simple recipe for cultivating democratic ways of being and working together.12 Bringing the theme of social interaction to the design and criticism of MRx foregrounds its capacity to form, reform and sustain interpersonal and collective interactions. At the most fundamental level, this theme enables a focus on how people relate to each other through the mediating influence of an [MR] environment. From this perspective, the experiences envisioned and fostered by MR cannot be reduced to their material and technological constituents. Neither can they be analyzed solely on qualities of form or methodologies and strategies that bring them to life. Rather, what is most significant for understanding MR are the relationships that it mediates. These relationships are unified by the purpose and function that the MR applications serve, giving meaning and cohesion to its material, formal and methodological dimensions. With this understanding, the key question at the forefront of design and criticism as we deploy and employ such technologies is: What vision of social interaction is sought and advanced through this design and does this vision appropriately characterize and address the problematic situation at hand? Foregrounding the above question compels us to derive insight from the plurality of conceptions of social interaction developed in other spheres to advance the design and criticism of MRx while at the same time positioning MRx environments as rich sites of discovery and inquiry about community engagement and participation. Together, these modes of inquiry have the potential to greatly advance both practices of design and theories of democratic social interaction.

is dependent on passersby to forgo their doubts about the video link, see beyond their differences, initiate interactions and perhaps even finds ways to develop and sustain relations beyond the transient encounters on the street. Many artists and designers share an excitement for the potential of MR to give voice to different interpretations and expressions. There is something intriguing about the ability to connect with others through shared public spaces that we inhabit and traverse everyday. Yet, it is important to be cautious that this enthusiasm about the potentials of technology does not lead to an oversimplification of the concepts of community, participation or political dissent. Individuals belong to many communities shaped around different purposes, interests and matters of concern with varying levels of cohesion, effectiveness and democratic characteristics. Participation requires appropriate channels and venues for engagement but availability of communication channels alone does not foster participatory or civic practices. MR, it may be argued, has the power to bring marginalized voices to the center of attention and make visible otherwise hidden and obscure perspectives, practices, and possibilities. There is a sense in which we might say that, from this perspective, MR can be viewed as a medium for political intervention. In doing so, we must carefully engage the ways that the integration digital onto physical has the ability to both center and marginalize voices, as well as open and close possibilities for engagement, collective action, and discourse.

4 Sites of democratic inquiry MRx is a new addition to a range of digital products that aim to facilitate social interaction through the use and deployment of networking technologies in location. However, the conception of social interaction varies significantly from case to case, with stark contrast in what is achieved socially, for whom, and toward what purposes. The cases discussed in this paper confirm that location-based technologies do not unconditionally produce social ties or foster the desirable qualities often associated with social connections such as learning,

Notes 1

10

As defined in the introductory article for this series, MRx experiences are conceptualized as site-specific; hybrid; and aesthetic, performative and/or social (For a detailed history of MR see, Introduction to this special issue) (Rouse et al., 2015b).

MRx as a participatory platform

3

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

4

5

6

7

8

This article provides one component of a new interdisciplinary, humanities-based framework for MRx design and criticism along with Bolter and Engberg’s article, “MRx and the Aesthetics of Locative Writing (Engberg and Bolter 2015) and Rouse’s article, “MRx as a Performative and Theatrical Stage (Rouse 2015). For a review of the evolving visions informing ubicomp see Weise et al. (2012). For an example of a critical perspective on ubicomp, see Galloway (2004). To date, there have been no published reports documenting how widely this project was used by the citizens or whether or not the local governments found useful information or acted on any of the ideas submitted through the application. This is in contrast to the majority of other projects by Local Projects that are often centered on storytelling and listening. Another more recent application is Rider Spoke by Blast Theory. Much similar to Yellow Arrow, Rider Spoke aims at creating personal and intimate tours of the city by asking participants to record stories and “hide” them throughout the city of London for others to explore and engage with. The act of telling and recording stories as well as that of listening compels the participants to reflect on the various (individual, political, social) facets of the built environment. For more on Rider Spoke, see Benford and Giannachi (2011) as well as its analysis drawing on the Media Studies lens in the accompanied article in this issue (reference to be added). From 1975 through 1977 artists Kit Galloway and Sherrie Rabinowitz developed a series of projects collectively titled “Aesthetic Research in Telecommunications.” Hole in Space was one of the experiments in these series. Artist Guarntz further explains the aims of this work and her reflection on how the interactions unfolded: "We were very open towards the interactions being ambivalent, awkward, frightened, warm, failed. It was set up as a critical intervention to test the potential for these interactions. As such, in addition to issues of socioeconomic disparity, we very purposefully and explicitly tested and traced the transformation of viewers’ relationship to technology –from the Techno-Utopian Exuberance of the original Hole in Space to present day. Many of the same people who might have once noticed such a portal as a site of wonder and excitement passed it by entirely absorbed in their cell phones. East Oakland residents were extremely concerned

9

10

11

12

about what they saw as additional surveillance; on our first installation day, we were warned by a YEP tutor that any criminal activity captured by the cameras could be subpoenaed. Viewers on the East Oakland side would often watch the screen from beyond the reach of the camera’s eye. Our relationship with technology and how it is used upon us has changed.” (Personal communication, September 23, 2015). For an expanded discussion of the characteristics of infrastructures see Star (2002); For a discussion of activities of infrastructuring related to those characteristics see Pipek and Wulf (2009); For a methodological perspective that engages issues related to infrastructuring see DiSalvo, Clement, and Pipek (2012). This view is aligned with the definition of infrastructure by Bowker et al. as “a broad category referring to pervasive enabling resources in network form.” They argue that this definition extends the conventional understanding of infrastructure as “tubes and wires” to the technologies and organizations which enable knowledge work. MR as infrastructure then might be regarded as “large scale information infrastructure,” one that includes “a vast array of digital services and resources such as collaboratories and centers, data and cod repositories, best practices and standards development, visualization tools, etc.” For a list of side projects based on Yellow Arrow, see http://brianhouse.net/works/yellow_arrow/. For a nuanced explication of democracy see Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1916). The work of de Souza Briggs (2008) provides a contemporary example.

References AR Occupy Wall Street. 2011. Accessed 24 April 2015. https://aroccupywallstreet.wordpress.com Benford, S., and G. Giannachi. 2011. Performing Mixed Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bishop, Claire. 2006. Participation (Documents of Contemporary Art). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Burke, Sarah. 2015. “Artists Create Two-way Video Portal for Oaklanders to Meet their Neighbors.” East Bay Express. Accessed 28 January 2015. http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/artists-crea te-two-way-video-portal-for-oaklanders-to-meet-the ir-neighbors/Content?oid=4178751. 11

Digital Creativity

2

Digital Creativity

JafariNaimi

Carr, Nicholas G. 2008. The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Technologies.” Paper presented at the 2014 Internet, Policy and Politics Conference, Oxford, UK. Howe, Jeff. 2008. Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. New York: Random House.

Carroll, John M., Blaine Hoffman, Kyungsik Han, and Mary Beth Rosson. 2015. “Reviving Community Networks: Hyperlocality and Suprathresholding in Web 2.0 Designs.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 19 (2): 477 –491.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. JafariNaimi, Nassim. 2012. “Exploring the Character of Participation in Social Media: The Case of Google Image Labeler.” In Proceedings of the 2012 iConference, 72–79. New York, NY: ACM.

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Counts, Michael. 2007. “Follow the Yellow Arrows: An Interview with Michael Counts.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan, The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins. Accessed 1 February 2007. http://henryjenkins.org/ 2007/02/follow_the_yellow_arrows_an_in.html#sth ash.BG9yBmmP.ZrHl4EVy.dpuf.

JafariNaimi, Nassim, and Eric Meyers. 2015. “Collective Intelligence or Group Think? Engaging Participation Patterns in World without Oil.” In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1872– 1881. New York, NY: ACM.

Dalsgaard, Peter, and Kim Halskov. 2010. “Designing Urban Media Fac¸ades: Cases and Challenges.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2277– 2286. New York, NY: ACM.

Jenkins, J. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.

Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. Middlesex: Echo Library.

Kirkpatrick, Marshall. 2001. “New Mobile App Makes Billboards Talk About European Politics.” Readwrite (blog). Accessed 5 August 2011. http:// readwrite.com/2011/08/05/new_mobile_app_makes _billboards_talk_about_europea.

DiSalvo, Carl, Andrew Clement, and Volkmar Pipek. 2012. “Participatory Design for, with, and by Communities.” In International Handbook of Participatory Design, edited by Jesper Simonsen and Toni Robertson, 182–209. Oxford: Routledge.

Kling, Rob, Howard Rosenbaum, and Steve Sawyer. 2005. Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics: A Framework for Studying and Teaching the Human Contexts of Information and Communication Technologies. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Engberg, M., and J. Bolter. 2015. “MRx and the Aesthetics of Locative Writing.” Digital Creativity 26 (3/4). doi:10.1080/14626268.2015.1100120. Foth, Marcus, ed. 2008. Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics: The Practice and Promise of the Real-time City. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Memarovic, Nemanja, Marc Langheinrich, and Florian Alt. 2012. “The Interacting Places Framework: Conceptualizing Public Display Applications that Promote Community Interaction and Place Awareness.” In Proceedings of the 2012 International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, 7. New York, NY: ACM.

Frieling, Rudolf, ed. 2008. The Art of Participation: 1950 to Now. New York: Thames & Hudson. Galloway, Anne. 2004. “Intimations of Everyday Life: Ubiquitous Computing and the City.” Cultural Studies 18 (2– 3): 384– 408.

Mitchel, William J. 2000. “Designing the Digital City.” In Digital Cities, edited by T. Ishida and K. Isbister, 1– 6. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Give a Minute. 2010. Accessed 16 November 2014. http://giveaminute.info

Orenstein, Natalie. 2015. “Site and Sight: A HOLE IN SPACE (OAKLAND REDUX) Opens a Window between Two Neighborhoods.” Eat, Drink, Films (Online Magazine). Accessed 5 February 2015. http://eatdrinkfilms.com/2015/02/05/site-and-sighta-hole-in-space-oakland-redux-opens-a-window-be tween-two-neighborhoods/.

Goncalves, Jorge, Simo Hosio, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2014. “Game of Words: Tagging Places through Crowdsourcing on Public Displays.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 705 –714. New York, NY: ACM. Hosio, Simo, Jorge Goncalves, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jukka Riekki. 2014. “Voices in the Noise: Crowdsourcing Public Opinion Using Urban Pervasive

Paulos, Eric, and Elizabeth Goodman. 2004. “The Familiar Stranger: Anxiety, Comfort, and Play in

12

MRx as a participatory platform

Human Interaction Special Interest 381– 384. New York, NY: ACM.

Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Paulsen, Kris. 2013. “‘Image as Place’: The Phenomenal Screen in Kit Galloway & Sherrie Rabinowitz’s Satellite Arts 1977.” Leonardo Electronic Almanac 19 (2): 98– 111.

Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin.

Pipek, Volkmar, and Volker Wulf. 2009. “Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and use of Information Technology.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10 (5): 447 –473.

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Group,

Soja, Edward W. 2010. Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. de Souza Briggs, Xavier. 2008. Democracy as Problem Solving: Civic Capacity in Communities across the Globe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone, the Collapse and Revival of Civic America. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Star, Susan Leigh. 2002. “Infrastructure and Ethnographic Practice: Working on the Fringes.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14 (2): 107–122.

Ribes, David and Karen, Baker. 2007. “Modes of Social Science Engagement in Community Infrastructure Design.” In Proceedings of Third International Conference on Communities and Technology, 107 –130. London: Springer.

Steinberger, Fabius, Marcus Foth, and Florian Alt. 2014. “Vote With Your Feet: Local Community Polling on Urban Screens.” In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, 44– 49. New York, NY: ACM.

Rouse, R. 2015. “MRx as a Performative and Theatrical Stage.” Digital Creativity 26 (3/4). doi:10.1080/ 14626268.2015.1100121.

Struppek, Mirjam. 2006. “The Social Potential of Urban Screens.” Visual Communication 5: 173–188.

Rouse, R., Engberg, M., JafariNaimi, N., and Bolter, J. 2015a. “MRx: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Mixed Reality Experience Design and Criticism.” Digital Creativity 26 (3/4). doi:10.1080/14626268. 2015.1100123.

Suchman, Lucy. 2007. Human-machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Surowieki, J. 2004. The Wisdom of Drowds. Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Docieties, and Nations. New York: Doubleday.

Rouse, R., Engberg, M., JafariNaimi, N., and Bolter, J. 2015b. “MRx Design and Criticism: The Confluence of Media Studies, Performance, and Social Interaction.” Digital Creativity 26 (3/4). doi:10.1080/ 14626268.2015.1100124.

Turkle, S. 2012. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.

Salim, Flora, and Usman Haque. 2015. “Urban Computing in the Wild: A Survey on Large Scale Participation and Citizen Engagement With Ubiquitous Computing, Cyber Physical Systems, and Internet of Things.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 81: 31 –48.

Weise, Sebastian, John Hardy, Pragya Agarwal, Paul Coulton, Adrian Friday, and Mike Chiasson. 2012. “Democratizing Ubiquitous Computing: A Right for Locality.” In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 521– 530. New York, NY: ACM.

Schroeter, Ronald. 2012. “Engaging New Digital Locals with Interactive Urban Screens to Collaboratively Improve the City.” In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 227–236. New York, NY: ACM.

Wenger, E. 1999. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whyte, William Hollingsworth. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.

Schroeter, Ronald, and Marcus Foth. 2009. “Discussions in Space.” In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-

13

Digital Creativity

Public Places.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 223 –230. New York, NY:ACM.

Nassim JafariNaimi is an Assistant Professor at the School of Literature, Media, and Communication, Georgia Tech. Her scholarship in digital media brings together design studies, human – computer interaction, science and technology studies, and pragmatic philosophy to engage with questions on the relationship of digital media and democracy. More specifically, she investigates the role of digital media in facilitating

democratic modes of social interaction across multiple sites of inquiry such as virtual communities formed around digital games or neighborhood interactions mediated by social media. Her research is both theoretical and design-based, engaging a wide range of digital forms including civic media, interactive visualizations, social and educational games, and locative media. For more information visit http://nassim.lmc.gatech.edu/.

Downloaded by [108.234.93.213] at 13:59 08 December 2015

Digital Creativity

JafariNaimi

14