CS 7455: Issues in Human-Centered Computing

Office: TSRB 332
Office Hours: By appointment.
Email: ledantec@gatech.edu

Class Meetings: Monday/Wednesday, 2:00–3:15PM
Location: TSRB 223

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 17 & 18. 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 and practice their personal research 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.

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).

Week 1		ADMINISTRIVIA & HCC FOUNDATIONS Read: Burrell, Gibson, And Gareth Morgan. Sociological Paradigms And Organisational Analysis: Elements Of The Sociology Of Corporate Life. Routledge, 2017. ( Introduction & Section 1) Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press. (Chapter 1) Write: How would you describe the paradigm of HCC?
		EPISTEMOLOGIES OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Read: Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions. University Of Chicago Press. (pp 80-104) Latour, Bruno, And Steve Woolgar (1986). Laboratory Life. Princeton University Press. (Chapter 2 – “An Anthropologist Visits The Laboratory.”) Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, And Bulbs: Toward A Theory Of Sociotechnical Change. Mit Press. (Chapters 1 and 2) Write: Summarize each reading
Week 2		MLK DAY No class
		TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS Read: Illich, Ivan. “Tools For Conviviality Harper And Row.” New York (1973). Write: How would Illich reimagine social platforms and their infrastructure as convivial tools?
Week 3		ICTD 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. Heeks, Richard. “Ict4d 2.0: The Next Phase Of Applying Ict For International Development.” Computer 41.6 (2008): 26-33. Kumar, Rajendra, And Michael L. Best. “Impact And Sustainability Of E-Government Services In Developing Countries: Lessons Learned From Tamil Nadu, India.” The Information Society 22.1 (2006): 1-12. Srinivasan, Janaki, And Jenna Burrell. “On The Importance Of Price Information To Fishers And To Economists: Revisiting Mobile Phone Use Among Fishers In Kerala.” Information Technologies & International Development 11.1 (2015): Pp-57. Write: Synthesize these four papers
		UNDERSTANDING ETHNOGRAPHY Read: Paul Doursh Chapter on Reading and Interpreting Ethnography in Ways of Knowing in HCI, Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms As Culture: Some Tactics For The Ethnography Of Algorithmic Systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 205395171773810 Vertesi, J. (2014). Seamful Spaces: Heterogeneous Infrastructures In Interaction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(2), 264-28 Write: Summarize each reading Milestone: Personal Reading List (about 20 items)
Week 4		ENGAGED RESEARCH Read: Hayes, G. R. (2011). The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 18(3), 15. Dimond, Jill P., Et Al. “Hollaback! The Role Of Storytelling Online In A Social Movement Organization.” Proceedings Of The 2013 Conference On Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2013. Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design: Towards More Equitable Participatory Design Engagements. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 216 (November 2019), 25 pages. Irani, Lilly C., And M. Six Silberman. “Turkopticon: Interrupting Worker Invisibility In Amazon Mechanical Turk.” Proceedings Of The Sigchi Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems. 2013. Le Dantec, Christopher A., and Sarah Fox. “Strangers at the gate: Gaining access, building rapport, and co-constructing community-based research.” Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 2015. Write: Reflect on how Dimond and Irani connect to the research orientations outlined by Hayes, Harrington, and Le Dantec.
		SOCIAL THEORY Read: Goffman, E. (1956). Introduction and Chapter 1 from The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American sociological review, 273-286. Erickson, Thomas, Et Al. “Social Translucence: Designing Social Infrastructures That Make Collective Activity Visible.” Communications Of The Acm 45.4 (2002): 40-44. Granovetter, Mark S. “The Strength Of Weak Ties.” Social Networks. Academic Press, 1977. 347-367 Write: Summarize each reading
Week 5		RACE & COMPUTING Read: Benjamin R. Race after technology: abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Medford, MA: Polity, 2019. (Chapter 1 and 5) Brown, Kevin, and Darrell D. Jackson. “The history and conceptual elements of critical race theory.” in the Handbook of critical race theory in education. Routledge, 2013. Patton DU, Brunton D-W, Dixon A, Miller RJ, Leonard P, Hackman R. Stop and Frisk Online: Theorizing Everyday Racism in Digital Policing in the Use of Social Media for Identification of Criminal Conduct and Associations. Social Media + Society. July 2017. Write: What does CRT tell us about how to interpret, critique, and design computing systems?
		FEMINISM & COMPUTING 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 Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. “The” Industrial Revolution” In The Home: Household Technology And Social Change In The 20th Century.” Technology And Culture (1976): 1-23. Write: Write 2-3 pages examining how feminist theory changes what kinds of problems computing might solve and how those solutions might be approached.
Week 6		STS & INFRASTRUCTURE Read: Star, Susan Leigh, And James R. Griesemer. “Institutional Ecology, Translations, And Boundary Objects: Amateurs And Professionals In Berkeley’s Museum Of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies Of Science 19.3 (1989): 387-420. Leigh Star, Susan. “This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35.5 (2010): 601-617. Write: In your own research settings, what is, and what is not, usefully considered a boundary object?
		HEALTH INFORMATICS Read: Ernala, Sindhu Kiranmai, Et Al. “Methodological Gaps In Predicting Mental Health States From Social Media: Triangulating Diagnostic Signals.” Proceedings Of The 2019 Chi Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems. 2019. Yang, Diyi, Et Al. “Seekers, Providers, Welcomers, And Storytellers: Modeling Social Roles In Online Health Communities.” Proceedings Of The 2019 Chi Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems. 2019. Saksono, H., Castaneda-Sceppa, C., Hoffman, J., Seif El-Nasr, M., Morris, V., & Parker, A. G. (2018, April). Family health promotion in low-SES neighborhoods: A two-month study of wearable activity tracking. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13). Veinot, T. C., Mitchell, H., & Ancker, J. S. (2018). Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(8), 1080-1088. Write: Summarize each reading
Week 7		DESIGN Read: Simonsen, Jesper, And Toni Robertson, Eds. Routledge International Handbook Of Participatory Design. Routledge, 2012 (Chapters 2, 3, 7) Wong-Villacres, M., DiSalvo, C., Kumar, N., & DiSalvo, B. (2020, April). Culture in Action: Unpacking Capacities to Inform Assets-Based Design. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14). Write: Situate your approach to design within your research w/r/t the readings.
		COGNITION & AI Read: Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636. [PDF] Goel, Ashok and Jim Davies. “Artificial Intelligence” in Handbook of Intelligence. 2011. Hutchins, Edwin. “How A Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds.” Cognitive Science 19.3 (1995): 265-288. Write: Summarize each reading 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.
Week 8		LEARNING SCIECNES Read: Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, And Rodney R. Cocking. How People Learn. Vol. 11. Washington, Dc: National Academy Press, 2000. (Only Chapter 2: “How Experts Differ From Novices,” ) Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Educational Research, 24, 61-100. Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., And Resnick, L.B., “Cognition And Learning,” In Dc Berliner Write: Summarize each reading
		VISUALIZATION Read: J.D. Fekete, J. van Wijk, J. Stasko, & C. North, (2008). The value of information visualization. In Information Visualization: Human-Centered Issues and Perspectives, (Editors: A. Kerren, J. Stasko, J.-D. Fekete, C. North), Springer, 2008, pp. 1-18. Wall, Emily, Et Al. “Warning, Bias May Occur: A Proposed Approach To Detecting Cognitive Bias In Interactive Visual Analytics.” 2017 Ieee Conference On Visual Analytics Science And Technology (Vast). Ieee, 2017. Wattenberg, Martin, And Jesse Kriss. “Designing For Social Data Analysis.” Ieee Transactions Of Visualization And Computer Graphics 12.4 (2006): 549-557 Write: Summarize each reading 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
Week 9		UBICOMP Read: Abowd, Gregory D. “What Next, Ubicomp? Celebrating An Intellectual Disappearing Act.” Proceedings Of The 2012 Acm Conference On Ubiquitous Computing. 2012. Abowd, Gregory D., And Elizabeth D. Mynatt. “Charting Past, Present, And Future Research In Ubiquitous Computing.” Acm Transactions On Computer-Human Interaction (Tochi) 7.1 (2000): 29-58. Bell, Genevieve, And Paul Dourish. “Yesterday’s Tomorrows: Notes On Ubiquitous Computing’s Dominant Vision.” Personal And Ubiquitous Computing 11.2 (2007): 133-143. Dourish, Paul, And Scott D. Mainwaring. “Ubicomp’s Colonial Impulse.” Proceedings Of The 2012 Acm Conference On Ubiquitous Computing. 2012. Write: Describe how these readings trace evolving arguments within UbiComp.
		HISTORY Read: Bush, Vannevar. “As we may think.” The Atlantic monthly 176.1 (1945): 101-108. Weiser, Mark. “The Computer For The 21 St Century.” Scientific American 265.3 (1991): 94-105. Write: Summarize each reading and reflect on how early visions of computing have evolved into our present experience. For class: Bring questions on any other readings or previous Quals question you would like to discuss further
Week 10		EXAM WEEK No class/office hours
		EXAM WEEK No class/office hours
Week 11		SPRING BREAK No class
		SPRING 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.