CS 7455: Issues in Human-Centered Computing

Office: TSRB 316A
Office Hours: By appointment.
Email: ledantec@gatech.edu

Class Meetings: Monday/Wednesday, 2:00–3:15PM
Location: Online

Please note that due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, this course will be held virtually for the protection of everyone involved. If you have concerns about your ability to access these materials or in participating in virtual class sessions, please let me know so we can find a workable solution.

Course Description

From the GT catalog: [CS 7455 provides an] in-depth focus on theoretical, methodological, conceptual, and technical issues across the HCC disciplines associated with humans (cognitive, biological, socio-cultural); design; ethics; and analysis and evaluation.

What this means: HCC quals prep and a spring-board into your research. We will be reading, and re-reading core texts for the HCC discipline; synthesizing core concepts, methods, and theories across the discipline; and building a foundation for individual research programs within HCC.

THE QUALIFIER EXAM WILL BE MARCH 18 & 19. Be sure to clear those dates and plan your personal reading preparation accordingly.

Grading

Grades are composed of three things:

1. The written assignments for each class day. These are typically brief summaries of the readings or application of the reading to a specific setting or technology.

2. Research milestones. These fall throughout the semester and are designed to scaffold your individual research program.

3. Final presentations. Following the written exam in March, everyone will present their oral qualifier presentation in class before they take the oral exam.

Participation

Class participation is mandatory. Participation in class discussion is imperative because it will allow you to develop a deep and nuanced synthesis of the material collaboratively. Participation in class also challenges you to continuously question, refine, and articulate your own ideas and interpretations.

Course Schedule

What follows is an outline for the semester. As the semester progresses, we may adjust dates and materials.

Week 2		MLK DAY No class
		ADMINISTRIVIA & SITUATED LEARNING Read: Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge university press. Do: Lens Matrix for Situated Learning
Week 3		EVOLUTION OF THE/A FIELD Read: Snow: http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/2cultures/Rede-lecture-2-cultures.pdfScience, 130(3373), 169-173 Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., and Resnick, L.B., “Cognition and Learning,” In DC Berliner & RC Calfee (Eds.), Handbook Of Educational Psychology (pp. 15-46) Kuhn, Thomas (1963). –Scientific Paradigms– pp 80-104 in Sociology of Science edited by Barry Barnes, Middlesex: Penguin Books 1972. Denning, P. J., & Freeman, P. A. (2009). The Profession of IT Computing Paradigm. Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 28-30. Morgan, D. H. J. (1980). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Sociology, 14(2), 332-333. Do: Compare and contrast these 5 readings: 1. A paragraph describing each reading, 2. How does each practice fit into the Burrell and Morgan sociological paradigms, 3. What is the trajectory described in each reading (i.e. from Anti-positivism to Positivism) 4. How do they compare/contrast in their analysis
		FRAMEWORKS & SCOT Read: Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, And Bulbs: Toward A Theory Of Sociotechnical Change. MIT press. Cowan, R. S. (1976). The” Industrial Revolution” In The Home: Household Technology And Social Change In The 20Th Century. Technology and Culture, 1-23. Morgan, D. H. J. (1980). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Sociology, 14(2), 332-333. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four Paradigms Of Information Systems Development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199-1216. Do: Summarize each reading Milestone: Personal Reading List (about 20 items)
Week 4		FRAMEWORKS FOR DISTRIBUTED WORK Read: Duncombe, R. (2006). Using The Livelihoods Framework To Analyze Ict Applications For Poverty Reduction Through Microenterprise. Information Technologies & International Development, 3(3), pp-81. Irani, L. C., & Silberman, M. (2013, April). Turkopticon: Interrupting Worker Invisibility In Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 611-620). Starbird, Kate, Ahmer Arif, and Tom Wilson. Disinformation As Collaborative Work: Surfacing The Participatory Nature Of Strategic Information Operations. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3.CSCW (2019): 1-26. Do: Complete Lens Matrix using Duncombe and Irani papers
		HCC THEORY: ACTIVITY THEORY, FRAMEWORKS Read: Bryant, S. L., Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2005, November). Becoming Wikipedian: Transformation Of Participation In A Collaborative Online Encyclopedia. In Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work (pp. 1-10). ACM. Halverson, C. A. (2002). Activity Theory And Distributed Cognition: Or What Does Cscw Need To Do With Theories?. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(1-2), 243-267. Nardi, Bonnie and Victor Kaptelinin (2012). Activity Theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Morgan Claypool. Do: Summarize each reading
Week 5		HCC THEORY: D-COG, ETHNOGRAPHY Read: Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed Cognition: Toward A New Foundation For Human-Computer Interaction Research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(2), 174-196. Liu, Z., Nersessian, N., & Stasko, J. (2008). Distributed Cognition As A Theoretical Framework For Information Visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 14(6), 1173-1180. Hutchins, E. (1995). How A Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds, Cognitive Science, vol. 19, pp. 265-88. Do: Complete Lens Matrix for D-Cog and Activity Theory Milestone: Research Statement (1–2 pages): Personal research statement Describe your stance and aspirations as an HCC researcher. Outline what you want to learn about, why, and ways that you would accomplish this. You can use a typical structure of intro, background, methods, and goals. The essay should be written anew (rather than reusing previously created material).
		SOCIAL THEORY Read: Goffman, E. (1956). Introduction and Chapter 1 from The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. “From Wittgenstein to Rosch” (chapter 2) Shore, B., Introduction and Chapter VI to “Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning,” Oxford University Press (1996) Do: Summarize each reading and complete lens matrix for Goffman and Lakoff
Week 6		STS & OTHER THEORY: ANT & INFRASTRUCTURE Read: Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2013). Laboratory Life: The Construction Of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press. (Chapter: An Anthropologist Visits the Lab…) , Star, Susan Leigh. The Ethnography Of Infrastructure. American behavioral scientist 43.3 (1999): 377-391. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology,Translations’ And Boundary Objects: Amateurs And Professionals In Berkeley’S Museum Of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387-420. Do: Summarize Actor Network Theory, and provide examples of boundary objects/not boundary objects. Be ready to debate Milestone: Research Questions: Identify the driving research contribution you want to make. (i.e. “My goal is to understand how cultural values impact technology practices and to leverage that into the design of culturally appropriate technologies.) Then identify 2–5 research question you can actually answer that help you reach that goal.
		STS & OTHER THEORY: FEMINISM & RACE Read: Bardzell, Shaowen (2010). Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining and agenda for design. Proceedings of CHI 2010. Donna Haraway, Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective Author(s): Donna Haraway Source: Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 575-599 Published by: Feminist Studies, Inc. Stable Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela D.R. Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Critical Race Theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20) Do: Write 1–2 pages telling us how feminist theory or critical race theory might change technology: 1. What could be designed through either lens? 2. what would be challenging for the production and sales of such technologies? 3. What social changes might occur if such technology became ubiquitous?
Week 7		ACTION RESEARCH & ETHNOGRAPHIC METHODS Read: Hayes, G. R. (2011). The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 18(3), 15. Jill P. Dimond, Michaelanne Dye, Daphne Larose, and Amy S. Bruckman. 2013. Hollaback! the role of storytelling online in a social movement organization. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’13). Paul Doursh Chapter on Reading and Interpreting Ethnography in Ways of Knowing in HCI, Janet Vertesi and Paul Dourish. 2011. The Value Of Data: Considering The Context Of Production In Data Economies. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’11). Do: Summarize each reading
		DESIGN Read: Toni Robertson and Jesper Simonsen. 2013. Chapter 1: Participatory Design: an introduction. In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge. 1-18. (And a link to google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=l29JFCmqFikC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) Barab, S. and Squire K. (2004). Design-Based Research: Putting a Stake in the Ground, Journal of the Learning Sciences. Gaver, B. (2014). Science and Design: The implications of different forms of accountability.. In Ways of Knowing in HCI (pp. 143-165). Springer, New York, NY. Simon, H. (1996). Chapters 1 & 5. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press. Do: Summary of Each Reading and 1 paragraph about your approach to design in your research. Milestone: Write a 3–4 page mini research proposal that describes a research project you are planning or would like to undertake in your area of specialization. This should be a doable project for a PhD student (2-4 years) and informed by your understanding of the literature in your area. Your audience: funding sources and a body of colleagues who do not share your skill set; a broader community who will care about the potential impact as well as rigor of research. The project can be whatever you want it to be, so feel free to ask the questions that interest you most! It’s not a contract, it’s a starting point for further exploration throughout the semester. Mandatory: Write the proposal from scratch; do not reuse any previously created proposals however recent.
Week 8		CSCW & SOCIAL COMPUTING Read: Ackerman, M. S. (2000). The Intellectual Challenge Of CSCW: The Gap Between Social Requirements And Technical Feasibility. Human-computer interaction, 15(2), 179-203. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength Of Weak Ties. American journal of sociology, 1360-1380. Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy And Human Behavior In The Age Of Information. Science, 347(6221), 509-514. Do: Lens matrix for Granovetter and Acquisti Milestone: Outline the methods that you will use in your research proposal, justifying why you are using these methods with references to related work. 1–3 pages
		ICTD & HEALTH Read: Kumar, R., & Best, M. L. (2006). Impact And Sustainability Of E-Government Services In Developing Countries: Lessons Learned From Tamil Nadu, India. The Information Society, 22(1), 1-12. Jensen, R. (2007). The Digital Provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance, And Welfare In The South Indian Fisheries Sector. The quarterly journal of economics, 879-924. Winner, L. (1986). Do Artifacts Have Politics? In The Whale And The Reactor: A Search For Limits In An Age Of High Technology. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 19-39. Do: Complete a lens matrix for each reading
Week 9		ETHICS & AI Read: Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The Ethics Of Algorithms: Mapping The Debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2). Grosz, B. (2012). What Question Would Turing Pose Today?. AI Magazine, 33(4), 73. Wattenberg, M., & Kriss, J. (2006). Designing for social data analysis. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 12(4), 549-557. Erickson, Thomas, et al. Social translucence: designing social infrastructures that make collective activity visible. Communications of the ACM 45.4 (2002): 40-44. Do: Summarize each reading
		LEARNING Read: Slotta, J. D. (2011). In Defense Of CHI’S Ontological Incompatibility Hypothesis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(1), 151-162. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How Experts Differ From Novices. How People Learn. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 19-38. Mamykina, L., Mynatt, E., Davidson, P., & Greenblatt, D. (2008, April). MAHI: Investigation Of Social Scaffolding For Reflective Thinking In Diabetes Management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 477-486). ACM. Do: Summarize each reading 1. What is your least favorite paper. 2. Bring questions on any other readings or previous Quals question you would like to discuss further
Week 10		EXAM WEEK No class
		EXAM WEEK No class
Week 11		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
		MID-SEMESTER BREAK No class
Week 12		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
Week 13		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
Week 14		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
Week 15		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD
Week 16		PRESENTATIONS Schedule TBD

Debate, Diversity, and Respect

In this class, we will present and discuss a diversity of perspectives. Although you may not always agree with others’ perspectives, you are required to be respectful of others’ values and beliefs. Repeated inappropriate or abusive comments and/or behavior will be cause for disciplinary action. If you feel that your perspectives are being ignored or slighted, or you in anyway feel uncomfortable in the classroom, please contact me immediately.

The Communication Center

The Communication Center is located in Clough Commons, Suite 447. It is an excellent resource for any student (undergraduate or graduate) who wants help with a communication-related project. You can visit the center for help at any stage of the process for any project in any discipline. The knowledgeable and friendly tutors are available to help you develop and revise your projects. They are not available to “fix” your projects. Please do not ask the tutors to proofread or edit your projects.

For information on making an appointment please visit their website. If you need assistance with the appointment system, you can call 404-385-3612 or stop by the center.

All services are free and confidential.

Students with Disabilities

Students should self-report to the Access Disabled Assistance Program for Tech Students at:
220 Student Services Building
Atlanta, GA 30332-0285
404.894.2564 (voice) or 404.894.1664 (voice/TDD)
www.adapts.gatech.edu/guidebook.html

Scholastic Dishonesty and Academic Misconduct

This class abides by the university’s policies relating to plagiarism, scholastic dishonesty, and academic misconduct. Per the Georgia Tech Code of Conduct, plagiarism is defined as:

Unauthorized Access: Possessing, using, or exchanging improperly acquired written or verbal information in the preparation of a problem set, laboratory report, essay, examination, or other academic assignment.
Unauthorized Collaboration: Unauthorized interaction with another Student or Students in the fulfillment of academic requirements.
Plagiarism: Submission of material that is wholly or substantially identical to that created or published by another person or persons, without adequate credit notations indicating the authorship.
False Claims of Performance: False claims for work that has been submitted by a Student.
Grade Alteration: Alteration of any academic grade or rating so as to obtain unearned academic credit.
Deliberate Falsification: Deliberate falsification of a written or verbal statement of fact to a Faculty member and/or Institute Official, so as to obtain unearned academic credit.
Forgery: Forgery, alteration, or misuse of any Institute document relating to the academic status of the Student.
Distortion: Any act that distorts or could distort grades or other academic records.