programming to save the planet

Adrian Friday is Head of Department and Professor of Computing and Sustainability at Lancaster University.

Adrian Friday is Professor of Computing and Sustainability at Lancaster University talking about programmers power to create responsibly.

I loved creating new things

Vision for future

(Can computing save the world?) Computing has a role to play – it helps us understand the world.

Creating better systems

I think you have to be a bit of a party-pooper. Our business models and the way we chose to run society, the way those businesses run that want to see more demand..and as society I think we have to hold that to account. As scientists it is our responsibility to say ‘hang on a second, we are creating systems that are putting more computers into our homes just so you can switch the lights on, with an extra energy footprint, extra resource footprint’ and I think it is our responsibility to try and highlight that these are design elements that are not currently factored into our processes.

Technology is innately situated in the world –

There’s a perception that green technology will save us…because it is more efficient it is more sustainable…but I personally don’t believe that the future is more of the same.

There’s a community who care about the impact technology is having on the world and on people

Programming superpower to try to save the planet

We’ve got a bit hooked on new stuff, more convenience.

Socioecological systems…look at where people’s lives have impact

On demand shopping… how (in)efficient is that? And what of the social impact? If we just look at the movement, that’s a traditional computer science problem (travelling salesman), but when you add in the social, we have to talk with other people

(Is computing sustainable?) It’s on an unsustainable trajectory.

Unsustainable computing, we’re locked into cycles of updates. We’ve created an expectation of updates – people aren’t happy with keeping things the same.

How do we create systems of longevity? – that we want things to last?

We’re very good at design things that are quickly going to be obsolete.

Ubicomp as a scientific lens – computing is throughout the chain, affecting people’s lives in very direct ways – we have to be responsible practitioners.

People are focused on a particular thing – like being a really good computer scientist – they’re not there necessarily to become a sustainable computer scientist. So there’s a challenge in how we communicate that in an engaging way.

Definition: environmental sustainability… energy and carbon impacts…not the business interpretation that is often conflated.

Success: Freight transport projects, walking and hybrid routing problem – hoping that this will change policy – so having a greater impact.

Superpower: computer science, being able to create my vision through the power of programming. It’s one of those tools that lets you create the future, and realise your dreams. It sounds a bit saccharine but you could be passionate about crowdfunding for a charity, or transforming cancer care – you could go out and help people achieve that with your programming superpower. So I’m going to apply my programming superpower to try to save the planet.

Activist: No.

Motivation: Work ethic. I do have a passion for this topic, and that’s a little bit selfless because it’s probably not a career maker if I was to be purely self-centred, but I do think that it is really important.

Challenge: I can speaking to academic audience really well, but there are huge changes, we have to address the climate change emergency, we academics fly too much. We have to have more impact.

Miracle: A global summit about climate change that focuses

Advice: Read Mike Berners-Lee’s book.

There’s this idea that sustainability is about giving things up. But actually sustainability is about valuing the human and doing things differently. If we get it right, we can have quiet roads, less pollution, places for the kids to play, more wildlife…lots of benefits for humankind that we’re not currently realising.

Engage with the impacts., and lobby politicians so that it’s clear that it’s important to you.


Emotion and logic

Dr Rachel Jacobs is an artist based in Nottingham and London. She founded the collective Active Ingredient. Rachel completed a PhD in 2014 entitled â€˜The Artist’s Footprint: Investigating the distinct contributions of artists engaging the public with climate change’.

We discuss many of Rachel’s projects, including A Conversation between trees (ACM), The Prediction Machine, and Rachel’s current project Performing the Future â€“ a project looking at the future in response to environmental change.

The art of sharing, telling stories

Approach without an agenda

Emotional connection

The focus has been ‘how do understand the data more?’ but there’s a disconnect, we need to focus on ‘how data can be made more meaningful?’.

We need a combination of emotion and logic to act

I’d rather help people think about it and make sense in their own terms than have them get angry or defensive.

Feeling of future unfolding

(Positive) Something has changed, I hope it sticks

Sustainability: Not thinking sustainability as something different from how we live our lives.

Superpower: Caring about how people feel emotionally about the world.

Challenge: Future Machine

Miracle: Changing the causes of climate change

Advice: Try to find out as much as possible, be open minded, even things that scare me.


Positive, responsible innovation

Dr Helena Webb is a Senior Researcher in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Helena explores how people interact with technologies in different kinds of setting and how social action both shapes and is shaped by innovation. We talk about responsible innovation, opportunities for positive change, and running ethical hackathons in Zimbabwe.

Understanding the ways in which our lives are shaped by technological innovations.

Activist?: Yes and no. I want to do social good but need to be open to be criticised.

Motivation: Opportunities to find out and see into different contexts

Advice: Go with what you are interested in and go with that flow.



golden thread: positive values

Kathy New is a researcher at Lancaster University on the socio-digital sustainability team. With a background in ecology and teaching and in the charity sector, Kathy is interested in social justice in energy markets, particularly the links between food poverty and fuel poverty.

If we’re looking for my golden thread, I would have to say values, positive values.

How to meld science, ethics and philosophy into one lovely, agreed, positive way for the planet.

Education to make a positive difference to lives of vulnerable people.

Success: Empowering women

Activist: Yes. I am active – if I see a problem I try and change it, don’t accept what is.

Superpower: Listening, asking questions

Motivation: Possibility of new day. Positivity.

Challenge: Finishing PhD

Miracle: For people to be kind to each other.

Advice: People know what is the right thing to do.

computing design

Imagining how things could be different

Ann Light is Professor of Design & Creative Technology at the University of Sussex and Prof of Interaction Design, Social Change and Sustainability at
Malmö University, Sweden.

Ann is a qualitative researcher specializing in design for social wellbeing, participatory design and social innovation, with a particular interest in creative practice for transformations to sustainability. She also studies how grassroots organizations use design.

How do we democratise futures?

Meaningful positives

Together as a force

Looking at how we can dwell together better

Systems to empower better human nature

Thought experiment workshops – we’re all in it together

I don’t work well from a position of hopelessness

How do we change the message? There’s a beautiful, kind, gentle…party going on

How things get connected and in balance

Something to hope for

Definition: Dwell together well

Superhero: Collectively we’ve imagined how things could be different

Activist: Yes, that’s my identity

Motivation: Realising potential

Miracle: Something for people to hope for.

Advice: Take that first act, find person who believes and do it together.

Africa computing India

HCI4Development: love for people

Nicki Dell & Neha Kumar


Working closely with people in a much more holistic approach to understanding this domain rather than thinking that technology is just going to be a silver bullet for a lot of these issues.


Dr Nicola Dell of Cornell Tech and Dr Neha Kumar of Georgia Tech join us to talk Human Computer Interaction for Development.


Sam: Welcome to Sustainable Lens – Resilience on Radio, a weekly show on sustainability topics brought to you by Otago Polytechnic. The show is co-hosted by Shane Gallagher who is not here tonight and me, Samuel Mann. Each week we talk with someone making a positive difference and we try to find out what motivates them and what it means to see the world through a sustainable perspective, through their sustainable lens.

Tonight we have two Sustainable Lenses, that of Nicki Dell from Cornell Tech and Neha Kumar from Georgia Tech. They both work in the area of Human-Computer Interaction for Development, both developing technologies for underserved populations, marginal populations and so on. Thank you for joining me.

Nicki: Thank you for having us.

Sam: We’ll start with Nicki then, shall we? Where did you grow up?

Nicki: I grew up in Zimbabwe actually, Harare, the capital city of Zimbabwe, that’s where I was born and that’s where I still call home.

Sam: What did you want to be when you grow up?

Nicki: That’s an interesting question. Most of my family is in the health area. My parents are pharmacists, my grandfather is a doctor and so I kind of defined my goals by not wanting to be in health and ended up choosing computer science because it was about as different from going into a medical profession as I could find at the time in Zimbabwe.

Sam: What did you think was going to happen if you did computer science?

Nicki: I wasn’t too sure. I think I didn’t really know what it was. It just sounded cool at the time. Once I started doing some programming courses, there weren’t very many at my school. It was kind of a small community. I decided that this was something that I liked a lot and I liked using code to build things that were useful to people, but I didn’t really have any idea that I would end up where I am today.

Sam: You did always think useful to people or is that something that you think you might be looking back on and thinking that’s what the goal was?

Nicki: Remember that the very first project that I ever worked on when I was fourteen working in a very old programming language called COBOL, that is from the ’70s, I was building a system for tracking pharmaceutical drugs to try and identify if people would take two drugs that had an interaction, whether or not they would end up combining. There was definitely from the beginning an interest in building systems that actually did something and that helped people.

Sam: That sounds suspiciously like a health front.

Nicki: I know. Well, I failed in my mission as you can probably tell almost immediately. That was the motivation was to not get a degree or to do anything academically related to health, but turns out that over the years I’ve progressed probably more and more towards doing projects that at least touch on the health domain in some way, so I guess I’m a failure.

Sam: And Neha?

Neha: Hi.

Sam: Where did you grow up?

Neha: I grew up in New Delhi. That’s where I was born and brought up. That is also where I still call home.

Sam: What did you want to be when you grow up?

Neha: I can’t really remember what I wanted to be. I think I just wanted to do math and that’s what I wanted to do in high school. When I went to college, it’s what I wanted to do. Of course my sister had done economics, and so I thought I could do math and economics and be exactly like her but then I ended up taking a different track.

My Mom was insistent that I take computer science or at least try it out. In my first semester as an undergrad I remember thinking that I’m just going to take this course so that I can finally just tell her that I don’t like it and that will be the end of it. Otherwise she’s always going to be telling me to take this course. Then I took it and I loved it, so that’s how I ended up doing computer science but I also did math.

Sam: Why did she want you to do that?

Neha: She thought it was really exciting. She thought, for whatever reason, that I would be good at it. I’m sure she thought that it was the thing to do because that’s what a lot of Indian parents think. She also felt like she would have loved to do it and she didn’t really have that chance, so she wanted me to try it out.

Sam: Where did you do your degree?

Neha: At Berkeley.

Sam: Straight on to?

Neha: I went on to do my master’s in computer science. That was at Stanford and then I went and worked at Microsoft for a couple of years. I was working on the PowerPoint team. At that point I was really excited because I was working on a product that I thought everyone knew and used and found useful, but it quickly got boring.

Very soon after, I was really kind of dying to get out. I thought I had my mid-life crisis. It was probably a quarter-life crisis but I just felt extremely unhappy, as I put it then, working on technology for technology’s sake.

The other thing was that I had always had an interest in education, so I had worked through my undergrad in an education nonprofit and working to support education projects in India. I didn’t know what else to do but thought I would try to use my computing skills somehow in the field of education, and that’s what made me go back to grad school.

Sam: What did you do then or where did you go?

Neha: I went back to Stanford to do my Master’s in Learning, Design and Technology and that was a programme in the School of Education. It was a fairly new programme at that point, but they had put it together to get people to think about how technologies could be useful in the education space. That was a one-year programme.

While I was doing that, I had the chance to do fieldwork for the very first time. I was in rural Karnataka in India helping another grad student in Berkeley with his PhD research. That experience is still my most favourite field experience, and will be I’m sure.

Sam: When you described it as Learning, Design and Technology, I was imagining it was going to be about designing, modelling things for use at places like U.S. institutions, but they had a much wider use in that?

Neha: No, they didn’t. Interestingly, I knew someone in that programme and she was developing a curriculum for teaching youth about HIV and how they could be more aware. I thought that that was incredible that there was a programme that would allow people to do that kind of work in their master’s research. I got involved with that project only because she needed someone who could speak with an Indian accent.

I was just doing voiceover, but when I found out more about her project I thought that was really cool and I need to apply to this programme and I need to do this thing. When I started the programme, I realized that I was the only one who had an interest in doing anything outside of the U.S. but I tried to do that anyway. That’s also when I applied to do my PhD to work with Tapan Parikh at the Berkeley School of Information. He had been doing work in this space for a long time.

Sam: What did you end up doing a PhD on?

Neha: My PhD was actually in ethnography. I was studying youth from marginalized communities in rural, semi-urban, and urban India and trying to understand what drives the adoption of technology in those contexts. My goal was to actually do a situated ethnography, understand how people were driven or why people were driven to using these technologies, and how technology could be designed in ways that actually resonated based on the uses of technology by these people. That’s how I ended up doing my PhD research and trying to understand how these youth were appropriating mobile technologies.

Sam: What’s the short version of the summary of the findings?

Neha: The findings, well what I found was that entertainment was of course the driving force. I studied how music was a motivator and how music and videos and soon the social networking were really driving adoption of these mobile technologies. What I studied and what I wrote about in my dissertation was really how these youth were a little driven by leisure and entertainment and ended up creating these informal learning environments for themselves and how these entertainment-driven uses were actually leading to development oriented outcomes.

Sam: Back to Nicki. Where did you do your undergrad education?

Nicki: I did my undergrad degree in the UK at a university called the University of East Anglia which is in Norwich. I did a year of it abroad from there in Canada at the University of Victoria in Vancouver Island.

Sam: You did?

Nicki: My degree was in computer science and most of the work that I did as an undergrad actually focused on computer graphics, which at the time I was very taken with. When I graduated I actually moved from England back to Africa to South Africa and lived for two years in Cape Town, working in an animation studio there mostly designing and creating digital content for kids. The animation studio has since put out several feature-length films that I think are Africa’s first feature-length animation, CG animation films.

Sam: Cool. That sounds fun. Why did you leave that?

Nicki: The entertainment industry ended up being not all that I thought it was going to be. I found that very quickly I also got a little bit bored with the actual day to day of the work that I was doing. In addition, it seemed to be a little bit more focused on designing characters that would sell and franchises and those sorts of things rather on kind of learning content or fun content for kids. I think I lost a little bit of the … The stars in my eyes were put out a little bit by that.

Maybe as Neha said, it was more boredom and the desire to go and see the world a little bit more and do some travelling. I quit my job in Cape Town and then I moved actually to South Korea and worked as an elementary school teacher for two years in South Korea teaching math, science, and English to elementary school children in an English immersion program in South Korea.

Sam: I wouldn’t have predicted you were going to say you went from Cape Town to South Korea.

Neha: Yeah.

Nicki: That’s why this is an interesting story. I mean, it was an incredibly valuable experience. In a lot of ways, it allowed me to travel extensively around Asia and Southeast Asia and to experience a lot of contexts that were different to Africa in a lot of ways, but also similar in many ways.

I also discovered that I did like teaching. Now having ended up as a professor, I think that was key in learning that being in a classroom and having kids learn or having students learn is something that I really enjoy. It definitely influenced my future career trajectory.

Sam: After that?

Nicki: After that I decided to conform to the rest of my life and applied to do my PhD in America. Interestingly, I was mostly motivated by not having lived in the States yet, so applying for grad school in the States was partly an excuse to go and live there for a while. My top choice of places to do my PhD by far was the University of Washington. They have a fantastic Computer Science department and were really very supportive from the very first email that I ever sent the administrator there. When I was accepted there, it was kind of clearly my top choice of place to go.

Sam: Did you know what you wanted to do?

Nicki: I did not. I started out thinking that I wanted to do more image processing and computer vision, which is when computers are essentially being able to see and interpret things in the world as we do. Although in my first year of the PhD I met my advisor, Gaetano Borriello, and he was working in this space. Initially I was incredibly skeptical.

I went to some of his seminars and I sat through some of the talks and I kind of thought this stuff is never going to work. The challenges are too great. The people are not going to be interested in this. Everything is going to break. It’s dusty. It’s dirty. Why are we even trying? This is all a waste of time. Then perhaps like Neha, so Gaetano kept at me for a while and I eventually started to come around and then I went and did some fieldwork myself.

I think as with her experience being in the field and actually seeing people and talking to them and interacting with them fundamentally changed the way that I thought about this particular part of computer science. Seeing their eagerness to embrace new technologies and to do things that everyone else was already doing, but more than that to do it for their own purposes and have the same opportunities that are enabled by digital devices and information really motivated me to stick with this particular area and continue to do work.

My PhD work ended up focusing on trying to see what we could do with the camera that comes built in to commercially available smartphones. If we can take images and videos using the camera, process them on the device to solve problems in data collection. Collecting data from communities and in settings where most data collection is still done on paper forms and to improve disease diagnosis by analyzing diagnostic tests for diseases like HIV and malaria.

Sam: This was about enabling communities to digitize their land records or…?

Nicki: Yeah. I really worked on two systems. One was digitizing data from paper forms. The basic idea is that you take a picture of a piece of paper using the camera on the device and it will register that image and automatically extract the information from that picture and put it into a database that can be queried and searched and analyzed in ways that paper can’t be, but continue to let people at the field level to use paper because they’re familiar with it. It’s cheap.

There’s a variety of different reasons why people like paper even in U.S. contexts, so universities. It’s everywhere. We wanted to allow them to keep using paper but at the same time digitize the data so that it could be useful for more decision making and higher level analysis that it currently wasn’t being used for.

Sam: My experience of paper-based forms outside the western world is that they’re incredibly intricate and really complicated things.

Nicki: Yes, absolutely and we saw that a lot. A lot of the forms that we ended up looking at, so we specifically focused on nongovernmental organizations or ministry forms and overwhelmingly there’s a huge push to convert all of the data into structured data. Most of it was looking at, for example, filling bubbles or check boxes or numbers rather than having fieldworkers write long passages of text. Developing algorithms and machine learning systems to interpret that structured data was a much more tractable problem and something we could find solutions for, using the computation power available on a mobile device.

Sam: Your field site for this was in Africa?

Nicki: The work that I did for this was based primarily in Mozambique. I was there, I did two deployments in Mozambique and we actually have another deployment that’s still going on in Malawi.

Sam: You had the advantage of coming from Africa, but you still had that experience of going backwards and forwards from a lab writing code environment to a field environment.

Nicki: Yes.

Sam: I’m not sure if “were you prepared for that is?” the right question, but is it hard?

Nicki: Absolutely. It was definitely very challenging. I think the first thing you learn immediately as you take something, a new system or a new device out into the field is that every assumption that you made was probably wrong. There’s a lot of you go back to your hotel room in the evening and redo everything hurriedly and hopefully in time for the next morning and the next day’s fieldwork.

There’s a lot of things that go wrong. I think something that always strikes me though is people’s willingness to put up with imperfection. From my perspective, I wanted the system to be perfect. I wanted everybody to be able to use it and have it never fail, never have any data collection issues or server issues or never lose internet connectivity. In reality, these things happen very frequently and people’s patience and willingness to persevere even when those things happen or the imperfection of the system is making it difficult for them to do their job is something that always struck me.

Sam: The second project you did was on diagnosis?

Nicki: The second project I did was similar. The first project was taking pictures of paper forms and extracting data. The second one was taking pictures of diagnostic tests and automatically interpreting the result of those. You would have a little plastic cartridge and that would have a series of coloured lines that would tell you whether or not somebody, for example, had malaria or HIV or syphilis.

It turned out that a lot of the nurses in the settings where they use these tests make mistakes. They don’t see faint lines, faint positive results. They don’t have a lot of eye care, so a lot of the older nurses, for example, don’t wear glasses when they should and there was a lot of positive tests being missed.

The idea behind having a system take pictures of the tests was that there would be a record of that afterwards. The system could interpret the diagnosis to either confirm the same diagnosis as the nurse or provide an alternate one that would suggest maybe do another test and get another opinion. Taking that data and then transmitting it to a database that was accessible to the Ministry of Health for them to start doing some disease surveillance and outbreak detection and those sorts of higher level decision making.

Sam: Now, the paper that you have presented at this conference is a meta-analysis of a lot of work done in HCI for Development, HCI4D. Before we talk about that, I’m having such a good time listening about your actual projects both of you. Let’s carry on doing that for a bit and then we’ll talk about the work that you came here to talk about.

Nicki: Absolutely.

Sam: Neha, what sort of work have you done since you graduated?

Neha: Since I graduated, I had the chance to be at the University of Washington where I was a postdoc in the same group that Nicki was doing her PhD.  That’s how we first got to know each other and started to work together. The project that I was doing primarily during my postdoc was actually operationizing my dissertation findings, so trying to see how media practices that I had observed and written about in my dissertation, how those could be leveraged in maternal health contexts in rural India.

There’s a project called Projecting Health, which I’m still working on though remotely that was started at the University of Washington. The goal of that was to use videos that were created by the community for the community and of the community for training or teaching mothers, the new mothers, how to feed, how to take care of their newborn infants. That’s the project that’s been going on now for more than three and a half years in rural UP in India.

Sam: That involves teaching people how to make the videos to start with?

Neha: Yes. In the beginning there’s a workshop of one or two weeks. We’re going to do one again soon, but the project started with that. There were NGOs that we were partnering with in the field. The staff from the NGOs were shown how to create videos using these low-cost cameras and then how to edit these videos, and also the process of storyboarding, so how they could take a health message and turn that into a video that wasn’t purely instructional, but also had like a little bit of a story in it.

They appropriated that process to then create these ten minute, fifteen minute videos which were really kind of short Bollywood films, I would say, of people within the community and trying to get at how … I mean, there were certain topics such as exclusive breastfeeding or institution deliveries or family planning methods. These are films that are kind of revolving around those topics.

The health workers are the ones who are responsible for getting this information, these films out to the communities. The staff of the NGO is responsible for creating these videos and for auditioning people, so bringing them into the cast of these videos and such.

Sam: Has it worked?

Neha: Has it worked?

Sam: How do you tell?

Neha: Well yeah, how do you tell? That’s a great question. I think that’s a really important question to ask for any project in this field. I think that the key point here is that we’ve been partnering with PATH, which is a global health organization. They have been responsible for doing the baseline, the end-line surveys to kind of see how the project has been progressing, what are the issues from the health and behaviour change standpoint.

The folks at the University of Washington and me have been looking at the technology side of things, so how could we leverage existing technology practices. For instance, how people are using mobile phones to either create or watch these videos and how those practices could be brought into this system so that the community can then both consume and share this content with others.

Sam: For this conference, the first keynote Dayo Olopade talked about development in Africa. She talked a lot about the informality and so on of the work and those different things. The first question someone stood up and asked a question along the lines of, why should San Francisco care or how is this going to make money for San Francisco? It seemed to me that he’d not listened to the whole talk. Are people talking at totally cross-purposes?

Neha: Are people talking at …?

Sam: At cross-purposes, are people like not listening at all? How far away from San Francisco development is development for Africa and India and so on?

Nicki: Hopefully it’s something that is getting better particularly within this HCI community and at the conference that we’re at. We’re starting to see that by having keynote speakers like Dayo come and give the keynote, one of the great things about a talk like that is that it starts to sensitize more of the people that are focused primarily on results, which settings or the Silicon Valley setting and allows them to think more about the kinds of problems that happen in other parts of the world.

I think it’s starting to happen more and more and bridging those divides. Our paper, for example, is similarly trying to offer a perspective to the larger HCI community and say here are some of the findings. Here are some of the lessons that we’ve learned and that can inform the broader field so that we can start to have more cross-pollination of ideas.

Neha: One thing in particular that I would say that she talked about, which I think is really critical even for people in our community to kind of listen to and think about, is the agency of the people themselves. It’s not just that we are developing these technologies to help people. I think if we get into that job then there’s no getting out of it.

It’s not that we’re helping people, so to speak, because that kind of also carries with it a very paternalistic sense. I personally think that I’m doing this work for myself and not for anyone else that I’m trying to help, but also I think that that helps in seeing people for who they are and valuing things the way that they value them as opposed to imposing our own value systems and our own judgements on them.

I think that’s something that she talked about with this idea of Kanju, I’m not sure if I’m saying it right, but Kanju, which is similar to Jugaad in India. This idea that people figure out their way based on the limited resources that they have. Certainly we can develop technology-based solutions for them, but we have to be really careful that we’re not also imposing our own value systems on them as we do that.

Sam: You’re listening to Sustainable Lens – Resilience on Radio. I’m talking with Nicki Dell and Neha Kumar about HCI4D, Human-Computer Interaction for Development, of which you’ve just done a big study of hundreds of papers that have been written in this field. Tell me about that study.

Nicki: We wanted to have a moment in time in which we pull together the field and kind of take stock of the ground that we’ve covered so far as well as analyzing some of the challenges that lie ahead and how we can move forward as a community. I don’t think anyone has done a kind of synthesis like this for a number of years now, and so it kind of was a good time to do it. The theme of the CHI Conference this year being CHI For Good, it also felt like a good moment in time to do this particular work. I’ll let Neha talk about some of the details.

Neha: Well, I think that just the process of putting together repository of papers was really challenging. Initially it was just hard to figure out like where do we look to find these papers? We tried to do it in as a methodologically rigorous a way as possible to try to target a good number of scholars and asking them where to look for these papers, what work to look at.

Then we went through the process of actually looking through all of these hundreds of papers, brought the list down to two fifty-nine somehow. It would have been nice to have a round number but we settled on two fifty-nine and then did the work of actually going through all of those papers.

Both Nicki and I went through them separately then went through them together, try to come up with a table of which we’re hoping to then share with the community and we’re hoping also that it will be useful for them. This table basically captures what the paper is trying to achieve in terms of who it targets and where the work has been done, why or what purpose such as education or healthcare or internet access and such.

Sam: We don’t have the paper in front of us, but I’m sure you can remember the generalities. Where was most of the work? Where were people focusing?

Neha: Well, a lot of the work was done in India and I think one of the big reasons for that is that there’s a Microsoft Research Lab in India which has been turning out a bunch of papers ever since it was set up more than ten years ago. Also the fact that English is … You can pretty much get by with speaking in English. The government is friendly to folks doing this kind of work.

For a lot of those reasons, India turned out to be the most popular country. I think there were more than a hundred papers that were looking at work in India. Aside from that, what were the other countries would you say?

Nicki: I think the next two most popular countries were South Africa and Kenya. Perhaps for similar reasons, they’re a little bit more friendly to English-speaking research communities. One of the great challenges I think that were surfacing in some of the deeper analysis that we did was the issue surrounding language and this bias for countries where English is spoken.

For instance, there was a dramatic lack, I would say, of work that had taken place in Central and South America at these particular conferences. The question we got at the end about looking at more local venues if we have been doing an analysis of maybe the venues actually in South America where the content is in Spanish and people are reading it in Spanish, there would be more work there. The point I guess is that that work is being done but it’s not finding its way into our community and our conferences, probably at least in part because of the language barrier.

Sam: What focus areas are people working on?

Nicki: There were three that really stuck out as being the leaders. I think the first one was education which covered both formal education, so interventions or systems that were targeting schools and teachers in schools, as well as more informal education.

For example, by teaching people how to do house work so that they could get a job as a house keeper, teaching people about health practices and other information services. Education was first. I think second was access, which we defined broadly as systems that sought to give people access to computing, access to the internet, access to information through …

Neha: Also papers that were studying access, so how communities were accessing technologies and the internet.

Nicki: Social media platforms like Facebook.

Neha: Yeah.

Nicki: Then the third one was health. There was a lot of work that was looking at community health workers and maternal health and trying to use usually very basic phones to provide information to patients around good health practices. Reminding them to go and do clinic visits and those sorts of interventions.

Neha: I would say that some of these papers do actually fall in a couple of areas. It’s not just that they’re only education, they’re only health, they’re only access. They might span both health and education for instance.

Sam: How do people frame the problem? I don’t want to say that they need a problem for the paper, carefully avoiding saying that a city or town is a problem, but how are people seeing what they’re doing? What’s motivating them, I suppose?

Nicki: Yeah. I think there’s a couple of things. A lot of things have identified very concrete problems. Some of the higher level goals are, for example, set by the Millennium Development Goals or now they’re the Sustainability Development Goals.

Neha: Sustainable Development Goals, yeah.

Nicki: Sustainable Development Goals. One of those would be to reduce by half maternal mortality. You would then say in this particular country, the maternal mortality rate is whatever number and that’s high compared to the world average. We wanted to design something to see if we could reduce maternal mortality in some way.

Neha: It’s very much about identifying resources that you’re looking at that are limited in some way and then trying to make up for those limitations by using technology-based solutions. That’s the interventionist work, but there’s also quite a bit of qualitative, more interpretive work that looks at, in specific contexts, how are people engaging with technologies? How are they using them for education, for finding jobs, for accessing social media sites?

There are those sort of parallel tracks also because the people who are doing this work come from very different backgrounds. There are computer scientists. There are also social scientists. There are cultural anthropologists.

I think that one of the unique things about this community is that there are people from these different disciplines who are able to come together and work together and use different methods, which is not always something that you find in other areas. There’s been a fairly harmonious coexistence I would say.

Nicki: Just to add to that, something that I think our paper at the conference really surfaces quite nicely is that maybe a decade ago a lot of this work was much more technology-driven. It was how can we take technology and put it into these contexts and have it save them and help them?

I think certainly what our work has shown is that we’ve come a long way in recognizing that we need to actually contextualize it. We need to go there and speak to people and understand their realities. Working closely with people in a much more holistic approach to understanding this domain rather than thinking that technology is just going to be a silver bullet for a lot of these issues.

Sam: How do people claim success? Not how you’ve measured their success, but what are they claiming?

Neha: A lot of different ways I suppose, and that also goes back to the disciplines that people are coming from. If they’re in global health, for instance, or they work in education, for instance, then their metrics are a little bit different. Again, they might be looking very much at quantitative measures or they might be looking at more qualitative aspects.

Success is hard to measure over a short period of time. There are some projects that have tried to do that, but they are mostly the projects that have lasted for four or five years or more. There’s not that many of them still in our field and one of the things that we talk about in the paper also is this distinction between outcomes and outputs and what we’re trying to produce immediately with our research and what we’re aspiring to produce in the long-term.

There’s also the difference between just looking at engagement with technology as opposed to actual say learning outcomes in the field of education. There’s lots of different ways that people try to conceptualize these things, but success, there’s no single definition of it. It mostly comes from the disciplines, so HCI or education or health or development. I think it gets harder and harder in that, harder to measure success.

Sam: There’s always going to be a problem with doing academic research in a development type thing when we’re starting to talk about intergenerational equity and things taking tens of years if not longer, and the drive to get on the conference cycle, you’ve got to produce something in six months. The PhDs are lucky if they get to stay in the field for more than a few weeks.

Neha: Yeah.

Sam: Is that unsolvable or do you have any suggestions on how we could address that mismatch of timescales?

Nicki: There’s been a couple of different ways that people have started to do this. Certainly one thing that came up a lot and that Neha pointed out is this idea that we’re aspiring, for example, to reduce maternal mortality. What we can show in the short-term is that reminding people using SMS reminders, for example, will increase the number of times they go to the clinic.

You’re not necessarily showing them the whole outcome, but you’re showing some improvement in metrics that do actually matter. There has been a different way of doing this is that we know certainly of a few people who have then taken their PhD work and created companies or organizations around that so that they can do this in the longer term. I think there’s a large push towards trying to do things in a sustainable way, so having interventions or projects or systems that go on for multiple years.

Figuring out how to support that or how it can be self-sustaining is one of the big challenges that people are grappling with at the moment. Rather than just doing your three years of PhD work and then packing up and everything is over, how do you actually build capacity in these places and put systems in place that don’t require you to manage it and maintain it.

Neha: One of the things that I think has worked well with a couple of the scholars that I know the work of is that when they’ve been in the field, they’ve tried to recruit local students and tried to work with them. What happens then is that when they’re not in the field, the students can still continue working. Certainly having Skype has helped and being able to work remotely or conference remotely.

Those are also some of the things that people have tried. I would say that different programs also have different requirements. Being at the Information School, I was able to actually spend one and a half years, a total of one and a half years in the field before I graduated but that’s not something I think I could have done in several other programs.

Sam: Do you have a favourite study that you looked at, it doesn’t have to be one of yours, that you thought, “They nailed it”? Maybe it’s not an individual study. Maybe it’s a sort of approach or pattern or something.

Nicki: Yeah. We did actually ask about some of the work that the people we were talking to and the people whose opinions we really document in the paper. We asked about work that they considered to be exemplary research and there were a couple of things that really bubbled up to the surface.

One was a body of work that has been looking at how to create systems that enable low literate people or people who might be blind, for example, to engage over voice or through graphical text-free interfaces. I think a lot of the work that’s really focused on providing low literate or illiterate people with access to the same kinds of services and information that people have when they are literate was certainly one of the biggest things that came up when people were thinking about exemplary work in this area.

Neha: Yeah. I would say that in general the type of work that I find really inspiring is when people put in a lot of effort to understand a space using ethnographic methods. Looking at the entire context and not just technology for instance. Looking at the socio-technical contexts and then designing technology interventions that might address that particular population in their context, addressing their needs and so on.

There is some work that’s more recent that I think tries to do that coming from Cornell actually by Ishtiaque Ahmed who has been doing work in Bangladesh. I think that from a methodological standpoint that is really inspiring. There’s a few other programs again that we mentioned in the paper.

Like Digital Green, for instance, which started out as a research project at Microsoft Research back in 2006 maybe. Then they span off. They created a nonprofit. They are now expanding to something like sixteen countries. That’s definitely a success story. No longer a research project, but they have made quite an impact.

Sam: I have some questions to end with. I think we’ll do them, both questions for both of you. We just have to be quick. Do you have an idea of what your sustainable superpower is? I’ll give you the background.

We’re writing a book called Tomorrow’s Heroes. We’re trying to distil the work that people are doing. What is it that you’re bringing to this that we can say, “Yes, that’s a really useful thing. Let’s see if we can duplicate that.” It doesn’t have to be an actual superpower, obviously. Unless you’re going to animate yourself to get back to…

Neha: I’m going to say love.

Nicki: For her I would say diplomacy. She’s very, very good at fostering consensus among people with different opinions.

Neha: Loving, it’s not just about between people or diplomacy. It’s really just about bringing all of yourself to this work and really thinking about what you have to give, not just to the field but to students which is part of the job. It just has to come from that place of love.

It’s so easy to be discouraged by so many things in the field. People try to take advantage of you or people … I mean, all kinds of things can happen in the field. If you don’t go with that feeling by constantly sort of replenishing your love supply, I think it’s just very hard to do this work.

Nicki: She’s a hard act to follow. I mean, I think for me it’s interesting because the very first thing that sprang to mind was students. I think that particularly as an academic and as a professor, it’s really the students that you can work with and inspiring them to do the best work they can do and to be the best researchers they can be is really what I see as being my primary goal for the foreseeable future. I guess I would want my superpower to be helping other people figure out what their superpowers are. It’s very meta for a meta paper.

Sam: What is the biggest success you’ve had in the last couple of years?

Nicki: Getting a PhD. I think for me it’s been probably learning from people in this community who have been incredible mentors and incredible researchers. I feel incredibly privileged to know people like this and to know that they are there and that they’re also working in this space. As a community I think we can do interesting things together. It’s not really a success, but I think trying to get to know these people and network with these people. I don’t know, it’s not very well articulated.

Neha: For me it’s the students that I have. I feel extremely grateful to have them. There’s a good bunch of students that I have gotten to know over the past year and I’m just very, very grateful that they’re so motivated, so committed, so sincere in the work that they’re doing and that they’re willing to give me a chance as well, because they could be working with a lot of other people.

Sam: Do you consider yourself to be an activist?

Neha: Yes.

Sam: In what way?

Neha: In every way. I think this goes into even like my day to day job and everything, there’s a very strong sense of … I think this just comes from doing ICTD work that there’s just a very strong sense of this is the right thing. I’m sure that I’m not always the only one who is right.

I’m sure that various people are right in various different ways. If I do think that something is the right thing to do, then it’s very hard for me to deal with not being able to do that. Sometimes you do have to give up certain things, but that’s very hard for me to do.

Nicki: Yes absolutely. I think as Neha has said, most of the people working in this space are doing so often for personal reasons. I grew up in Africa, she grew up in India and this desire to try and make the world a more equal place is certainly something that we’re both very eager to work towards and encourage other people to work towards.

Sam: You’ve just answered my next question, but I’m going to ask it anyway because then you get a free hit. What motivates you?

Nicki: What motivates us?

Sam: What gets you out of bed in the morning?

Neha: Students.

Nicki: Yes students. Definitely I would say two things, one is the freedom to work on problems that you find interesting definitely is something that … One of the main reasons that I chose to go into academia was this freedom of choice. Fortunately for me, the kinds of students that also want to work on those problems are amazing students who want to change the world and who have deep dreams to do better things. Those two things together are really worth getting out of bed for.

Neha: Yeah, absolutely. Whenever I have a meeting, so Wednesdays are my days for meeting with students starting 9:00 and going until 5:00, and that’s just the best day I have. I can barely talk by the end of the day, but it’s just the best day of the week.

Sam: What challenges are you looking forward to in the next couple of years?

Nicki: Trying to figure out how to have more time I think.

Neha: Graduating my PhD students. I’m really terrified of that right now.

Nicki: Yes. Certainly taking on the responsibility for students’ careers and making them successful and trying to help them work on the things that they want to work on is probably the biggest challenge and the biggest responsibility that I feel at this point.

Neha: Having more people do this work and having the community grow and more and more people want to do this work and realize the importance of it. I think the other challenge that both Nicki and I are dealing with and will be dealing with is just having other people kind of see what we’re doing and think that it is relevant because certainly as activists we think it is relevant.

Sam: Hopefully as that community builds, those graduating students won’t find it necessary to do this as a hobby and find a “real” bit of computer science to do.

Neha: Absolutely, yes.

Nicki: Yes.

Sam: I think that’s going to be really important.

Neha: Yeah.

Nicki: Absolutely.

Sam: If you could wave a magic wand and have a miracle occur by tomorrow morning, what would it be?

Nicki: Wow, that’s a tough question.

Sam: If you don’t believe in miracles, I have a backup question which is, what is the smallest thing that you could do that would have the biggest impact?

Nicki: That’s an even harder question.

Sam: Okay, back to miracle.

Neha: No, miracle. You said miracle, right?

Sam: Mm-hmm (affirmative).


Neha: I would just make sure that there are like a billion jobs for ICT4D interested folks, so that they don’t have to think about what other things they should be doing or how they should be going and joining these tech companies to do other boring work.

Nicki: Yeah. I don’t know. I think for me the miracle is more centered on the work itself would be in education. I think in general education ultimately is the cure and the solution for all problems. Trying to have several generations of people instantly be educated and able to have the skills to solve their own problems would be my miracle.

Sam: Lastly, do you have any advice for our listeners?

Nicki: Be activists.

Neha: Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

Sam: Thank you very much for joining me. You’ve been listening to Sustainable Lens – Resilience on Radio, a weekly show on sustainability topics brought to you by Otago Polytechnic. The show is co-hosted by Shane Gallagher and me Samuel Mann. We broadcast on Otago Access Radio and podcast on

On, we are building up a searchable archive of conversations with people from many different fields who are applying their skills to a sustainable future. In our conversations we try to find out what motivates them and what it means to see the world through a sustainable perspective, through their sustainable lens. Tonight’s sustainable lenses are that of Nicki Dell from Cornell Tech and Neha Kumar from Georgia Tech.

You can follow the links on Sustainable Lens to find us on Facebook and you can listen to Sustainable Lens via all the pod sorts of places including iTunes for free. That was Sustainable Lens. I’m Samuel Mann. I hope you enjoyed the show.


Loyalty to devices, not just brands



Christian Remy is a researcher at the University of Zurich,   He researches attachment theory and considers how we can encourage loyalty to devices, not just brands.


Talking points
Christian: What kind of consumer electronics do people buy and how can we give them information on how to make better-informed purchasing decisions. We had some information back then, we thought we had some information on this later on, which turned out to be not the case, so that project changed, slightly changed gears in my PhD.

What I stuck with was studying people’s purchasing behavior, what kind of technology are they buying and why are they buying this? Then there was this entire research area around the replacement cycle; basically, so why do people buy a new mobile phone every year, when actually in theory there is no reason why it shouldn’t work for 5 years? If you look at it objectively, there’s lots of motivation to not buy a new phone, because you got accustomed to it, you have all of your data on it, it’s expensive, and all of this kind of stuff, but still people go on and buy a new iPhone every year, or a new AT&T phone, something, whatever, every year.

That got me into this obsolescence thing, obviously. You have this designed obsolescence discussion, which is the sort of paranoid, maybe true assumption that industry is building devices on purpose so that they break after 2 years. There’s this joke usually that a phone has a 2-year guarantee and exactly after 2 years and 1 day, the phone breaks.

Sam: The business model is entirely determined on selling more stuff.

Christian: Exactly.

Sam: They have to sell you that new phone?

Christian: Exactly.

Sam: Even if it doesn’t break, they heavily advertise the next one so you feel quite embarrassed that you’ve got an old one.

Christian: Yeah, and there is the social peer pressure, obviously, like, “Oh, my God, you still have the old phone like from last year. How dare you? That’s unacceptable, you need to have the new phone, 10SE, whatever.”

Sam: Now you have this sustainable viewpoint, is that the killer app? but is that the killer undoing of computing and sustainability that is so fundamental that we need to sell you a new computer, a new phone? Can we overcome that?

Christian: I would argue we can, because the industry itself actually, I see a silver lining within the industry itself, which is the move from selling devices, selling hardware, to selling services, which you see in all of this cloud computing that is coming up. Everything is moving into the cloud. You don’t buy a piece of software anymore, but you buy a subscription for a piece of software, and you have all of those different income strategies. Maybe those at some point can, for industry, make up for the effect of reduced revenue from selling new devices. I don’t know. Like I said, it’s a silver lining. It’s a little bit of wishful thinking, maybe, on my part, but maybe that’s the case.

I very recently, just before I came to this conference, read an article that actually there are signs for this rapid replacement cycle slowing down. I don’t remember the exact figures, but I think there were studies that in the U.S. people were replacing their phones every 14 months, on average, and I think that is slightly going down. It’s probably down to something like 17 months, and obviously at some point every market is saturated as well. I think in 2014 we were producing or selling 1 billion phones a year, and at some point everyone has a phone.

Sam: Have they perhaps reached a zenith of the stuff that they can pack into a phone that’s useful? There’s not many more things, perhaps, that they can put into it that’s going to make such a big difference to me?

Christian: You would think so. Obviously, every phone has a camera right now. Many phones have some kind of super-high precision detection thing, which can even do fingerprint detection and stuff like that. If the new phone doesn’t have any new features, besides just being 5% faster, then at some point people might also just be reluctant to buy a new phone, because they don’t really see the point. Yeah, that could be the case.

Obviously, as history has shown us, Moore’s Law and all those kinds of things that predict that technological advancement will always go on and go on, and go on, and there will always be new things, so maybe in 10 years from now there will be a new thing that needs to be in everyone’s phone, which proves us wrong.

Sam: Yeah, I’m just trying to think about what else are we carrying. You see those pictures of what the phone has replaced, the desk and the typewriter, and the camera, and everything else, but not carrying that much else. I bet there’ll be something else, won’t there?

Christian: If you told someone in the ’80s that every phone once would have a camera, they would be like, “Why? I don’t have a camera with me? I don’t think … ” I don’t know, ask 100 people in the ’80s on the streets if they have a camera with them. I don’t think there would be that many people, so the camera became an essential part of the phone now, even though it hasn’t really been something that everyone has been carrying with them. I think it would have to go beyond just what people have on them, but what artefacts of technology are you using in your everyday life?

It is an interesting discussion. It’s sort of dangerous, because we’re doing the job for industry to find the new thing to carry on obsolescence, almost.

Sam: Yes, but now we’re at the point where we can argue that it’s not going to carry on. Is it a problem that we can say actually that that problem is going to fade away? You’d have to be brave to say that, wouldn’t you?

Christian: Yeah, brave or maybe naïve. I don’t think just sitting back and waiting for the problem to disappear is a good strategy. I’d rather like to be proactive, obviously, and my research has been trying to do that. Yeah, rather than just sitting there and waiting for the problem to be…

Sam: That’s what you started with when you went to Zurich. Then where did you go?

Christian: Yeah, like I said, obsolescence was the kind of issue. Then one of the things that I found out, that there are so many motivators for people to buy new phones, but what are the motivators for people to actually keep their phones? Then I looked at research, and there is actually so much in the research domain that already tells us strategies on how to design devices in a way that people don’t throw them away as easily. There’s lots of stuff about augmentation, so, for example, how can you reuse technology later on?

We have met some people here at the conference, actually, who took their old tablet just as an e-book reader, even though it wasn’t 100% functional anymore. You can, obviously, resell devices like a second-hand market, and then my kind of direction of the research is rather something about ensoulment, or emotional design, as Don Norman called, or attachment framework, which is exactly what I’m focusing on. How can we design devices so that people really get so attached to the particular device that they don’t want to replace it? That’s what I was focusing on.

The thing is, like I said, the research has already been done. Those frameworks exist, but I saw it as my goal of my thesis to bring this to product designers, so that’s what I took. I took this framework, this knowledge about how to create attachment, how to foster attachment, and gave this to product designers and asked them to create a piece of consumer electronics, a tablet in particular …

Sam: Okay, so emotional design or attachment design 101, go.

Christian: 101, well, it has some criteria on how to achieve this, so one of those is, for example, engagement. If you have a device that, when you use it, it creates some sort of … You’re engaged in using it. The way how you interact with the device really is fun and enjoyable; that’s something. Memories is a strong facilitator for attachment. When you look at your device and you remember, “Oh, I’ve used that at this conference. I’ve used that on my vacation, and I really don’t want to get rid of that,” because those memories are connected to the device.

We usually don’t see this connected to devices, but actually to other physical objects, like there’s studies of people who keep old cups, for example, with some kind of labels or whatever on them for many decades, because they remember them or something. Those are the kind of criteria that …

Sam: Isn’t my attachment to the stuff that’s in the device, not the device? The photos that I’ve collected migrate quite happily around my progression of, my series of devices.

Christian: That is exactly the difference between the kind of attachment I’m talking about and the attachment that already exists, because marketing has done a great deal of this research, now to foster attachment, however, what they’re doing is brand attachment, or it’s called “brand loyalty,” in marketing speech. What I’m rather doing is, I sometimes call it “device loyalty,” because rather than just, “I really want this next Samsung phone, or Apple phone, or iPhone, obviously, I rather want to keep this particular device.”

For example, that’s an idea that came out very recently, that someone had just yesterday. What if a phone would have a casing made out of wood and then as you used the phone, obviously the wood gets a different patina, a different look and feel, and it feels very personalized? If you were to buy a new phone, yes, you could take the pictures with you and put on the new phone, but it would definitely look different, and it wouldn’t really feel like your phone. It’s kind of like an old wallet. You know, if you have an old wallet that’s …

Sam: I was about to say that what’s working for me is that my phone, I’m just holding it up in front of me here, looking at it, my phone is attached to my wallet and for me that’s the thing that’s made such a huge difference. I used to lose all the time, misplace all the time, both my wallet and my phone. Having the 2 things joined together means that it’s working for me, and I really, really like this solution. I’ve seen others, and there’s other things that work as well. For me, this 100% works.

Christian: What are you actually attached to? Are you attached to the wallet, or to the phone? It looks to me like you could easily just replace the phone and buy a new one, as long as it fits the form factor of this particular wallet.

Sam: I’m attached to this combo.

Christian: That’s interesting.

Sam: Just thinking about it, I said it’s perfect, but it’s not quite perfect. You see here … Sorry people on the radio, see here that I’ve drawn lines here, and those lines are to remind me, when I put my cards in, I have to put the strip in on that side, because I went through 2 or 3 cycles of breaking cards by putting them in on that side and having the magnets that hold it close, breaking the magnetic strip.

Christian: Oh, there’s a magnet in there?

Sam: Yeah, there’s a magnet that holds that closed like that …

Christian: Ooh.

Sam: … but, once I fixed that, and maybe that’s one of those things about the attachment is that I’m able to modify it to suit me.

Christian: That is a perfect example of attachment through customization, because you personalized this. This is not only like some kind of wallet you’ve found worked really well for you, but you actually modified this to suit your needs. You made some modifications to it and even if I had exactly the same one, it wouldn’t have those personalized marks there, or maybe if I make the discovery and I would put them on there. This is like not just finding this particular brand of wallet and that particular design, but actually just this one is very individual, like you wouldn’t find a second one.

Sam: Actually, annoying, as you said this particular brand. It’s not branded and that has meant that I can’t find a replacement.

Christian: Oh, my God.

Sam: I can’t go into a shop and say, “I want the something, something one,” because it doesn’t appear to exist. I can’t find it again.

Christian: Which is obviously very difficult for consumer electronics, because they’re very much on brand.

Sam: Yeah, and there’s 2 things. One of them, it’s changed my behaviour in 2 ways. One of them is that they little bit that goes around the corner here on the outside of it moves down. As it’s aged a bit it moves down and it covers the camera. Whenever I go to take a photo, I have to remember to do that, to move it out the way. It’s only a little thing, but whenever I get somebody else to take a picture with it I forget to tell them and the picture has got a big shadow across half of it, but I don’t mind, because I remember to do it. I rarely take a picture that I forget to do it, so it’s almost like it’s a personalised …

Christian: That reminds me of another criterion, which is learned functionality, which usually refers more to technological things, but that’s kind of like you learned the particular way on how to use the technology in accommodation with this wallet, which is something that you probably have a certain value assigned to this, like, “I know how to use this.” Like you said, it doesn’t really bother you, so it’s fine, but it you were to buy a new wallet or a new phone that would all of a sudden have a camera positioned slightly elsewhere, and then you have to learn a new behaviour, or learn a new functionality. That would be off-putting, and maybe it’s another reason to be already attached this particular wallet and this phone.

Sam: Another thing about it is that it didn’t actually suit me at the start, and I had to change my behavior in a significant way because of it, and that is because it doesn’t have a place for coins. It quickly prompted me to avoid coins like the plaque, because I’d end up putting them in other places, in pockets and things, and then I’d spend them to get rid of them, because I don’t want to carry coins. I like this. It works for me, except that I had to quite quickly wean myself off coins.

Christian: Well, maybe not too bad, as long as it works.

Sam: Maybe I’m talking myself out of this, but it bizarrely works for me. You mentioned the form factor before, so this is a form factor for an iPhone 5. Not that I’ve needed an iPhone 6, but if I get an iPhone 6, I also have to replace this.

Christian: Yep.

Sam: I imagine if somebody was to give me an iPhone 6, I might solve that problem, but I’m certainly not in a rush because of it.

Christian: Yeah, so that’s a good point. Actually, I don’t remember one of the designers that we did the study with, actually had an idea to that; maybe. Off the top of my head I don’t recall it, but it would certainly be something that we would go back to have … What am I looking for? The kind of peripherals that you have, like the casings, like in the ’90s we had casings for phones and stuff like that you could switch off the keyboards and stuff like that. Now every phone has a bumper, I think they call them bumpers for the iPhone, so maybe those kind of things can also be used in combination to create this kind of attachment. Yeah, could be. Could be potential.

Sam: The companies don’t help the situation by changing, primarily for technical reasons, but, for example, when they changed the big plug on the iPhone and the iPad to a little one, to the Lightning connector, the microphone that we’re currently talking through has got an adapter and for some reason they still haven’t provided a Lightning Adapter for that device. I have sellotaped to the output from the microphone the adapter to go into the Lightning, so I’m kind of like, “This microphone works for me. It’s much, much better than the microphone on the iPad itself.

Christian: Right.

Sam: Where did that lead you, that work?

Christian: Where did it lead me? Now, as I’m finishing my work, as in writing up, it’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s very interesting because, obviously, it’s both very interesting and very well-received, like even at previous conferences I’ve met people from industry, who actually said this was very interesting, but at the same time it’s also very challenging. I always come across those arguments. It’s kind of like this dilemma that, yes, attachment is great and probably people want to be attached to their personal belongings, especially something as expensive as a phone, but also the industry and economy works against that.

That’s the dilemma I’m facing, but in my future work I would say, in my outlook, I’ve taken this prerogative stance that maybe this is all changing in the future, hopefully, I’d say, as I said before, with more and more upcoming services structure that we’re moving more into companies providing services rather than just hardware.

Sam: Those deals that you can get, certainly in New Zealand and I’ve seen them in the U.K., so presumably they’re wider, where instead of buying a phone you buy the phone service with the company, the advantage of doing that is that they promise continual upgrades. The other way that they have moved to that phone as a service is by doing what we would think is the wrong thing.

Christian: By giving you an entirely new phone every year, you say?

Sam: Yes.

Christian: Yeah, right, so obviously that’s not what I’m thinking of. What I’m thinking of is more like the entire area of modular phones, which has been proposed, I think, first time 10 years ago. More recently, we’ve seen them coming up more and more, and also being more successful. The Fairphone is just one of them, it’s like the very popular one, but there’s Phonebloks, there’s Project Ara, there’s a couple of phones that are coming out and offering those modular things.

I guess we were looking at this, and rather than just giving you an entirely new phone, they would give you the option to … “You have this subscription-based thing. If a new phone comes out, we promise you we’ll just give you the high-resolution screen and you can switch it.” Obviously, the best way would be if you could switch it yourself, because what else would give you more satisfaction than if you could replace something in your phone yourself, rather than just send it somewhere and you get a new phone back, or you get a new part of the phone back?

I think, again, that’s something where we don’t know what the future holds. I certainly hope that it goes into this direction, that’s it’s into the modular phones instead of just replacing entire devices.

Sam: Is this the work that you’re extracting these sorts of themes and calling them as patterns?

Christian: Yeah. I think there is a lot of patterns in there, because as you have said, moving entirely into services, have modular phones, have re-user phones, so you give it someone else after you personally are not using it anymore, for whatever reason, maybe augmenting a device by using it for something beyond its intended purpose. After some of the functionality breaks, maybe you can use the tablet as a picture frame on your cupboard. There are a variety of patterns in there that I see emerging, that could be potentially very useful for us in the future.

Sam: You initially started out stumbling into computer programming by solving your math problems with computer programming. Are we going to be able to solve sustainability problems with computer programming?

Christian: Good question, difficult question. I don’t think that’s a yes or no answer here. I often like to say we are part of the problem, and that’s why I think we have an obligation to be part of the solution. If you look at this conference here, there are 3700 people, I think, around here, and they’re all striving for innovation. They are all, not all of them, but many of them are striving to find the new technological development that brings HCI, human-computer interaction, as a field forward, that brings computer science forward.

New technology is being developed and this obviously contributes to obsolescence, because, as we’ve talked about before, 20, 30 years ago no one would have thought of a camera being on a mobile phone. Maybe in 20 years from now we have something in our pockets that doesn’t look at all like the mobile phone, but it’s something that is super-obvious and we all need then. Maybe that’s something that is appearing here, now, in computing research.

That’s why I think we are part of the problem. This obsolescence is brought upon the society by our computing community, and that’s why I think we need to try to address this issue.

Sam: I’ve thought of an app that we don’t have yet, and that’s if we could take a pill and be filled up with some nanobots. It would be continually monitoring our health from the inside and our phone would be connected to medical specialists and it looked after us. That’s a compelling reason for buying a new phone. I’m sorry, even if I like the device, that would be a thing that would say, “Sorry, old device, you’re gone,” so, are we kidding ourselves?

Christian: Maybe we are, I don’t know. Maybe related to what you mentioned, there’s actually a piece of research that actually talks about, I think they’re called “insertables,” I don’t know, things you put under your skin. We’re almost turning ourselves into robots, as one of my undergrad instructors about HCI used to say, “There is no human 2.0. We can always change technology. We can’t change humans.” Maybe that’s not exactly true, because maybe the future will actually be …

Oh, my God, I don’t even want to think about that, but maybe it is something like that. I don’t know if I want to upgrade something that’s embedded in my skin every year, even if I have it.

Sam: It would hurt.

Christian: Yeah, exactly, so nope, I’d rather not.

Sam: As we get closer to that cyborg thing, we’re going to be more attached to it, because it’s me.

Christian: Yeah, it’s a part of us.

Sam: Maybe that’s where I’m going with my wallet. It feels like it’s mine, it’s part of my identity, hopefully, anyway. Other people might not recognize it.

Christian: It certainly does, yeah. I hope that we are going into a future where we don’t replace the synergy all the time, and maybe also it’s the same discussion we have about peak oil, that in 20 years from now we don’t have enough oil anymore for the entire world. The problem is we have been saying this for 50 years from now, so maybe the same thing happens at some point to some of the materials we are using in technology, that we will run out of them. It doesn’t really look like that, but maybe at some point we will be forced for reasons of availability of resources to change our entire production cycles of those things.

Sam: If you could either go back in time or change it for the people that are doing now, what would you change in your undergrad education? Would it have been beneficial and would it be beneficial for the wider crowd to have more sociological work, earth systems? Is it worth trying to get that into computer science?

Christian: I think so. I have to be honest, when I started my undergrad, I had to pick a minor. It was called “application subject,” or something like that, and one of them was psychology. I was like, “What? What’s the connection between computer science and psychology?” I totally didn’t see that, and obviously once I took HCI courses I was like, “Yes, I see the connection. I want to change,” and I couldn’t change anymore because the European system changed to Bologna and there was lots of political reasons involved, so I stuck with physics, which is obviously very different to psychology, but now I see this, I personally would have liked this.

I personally would say, yes, it would be great if we would give everyone at least the opportunity to more realize how much this all back-feeds into the society. What we do in terms of technological advancement, it also might change society for the better. I don’t know. The thing is that I don’t really know if many people see it that way, especially in undergrad when you start, like me, very naïve. You start and you want to program stuff. You study computer science for a reason. Not everybody is really interested in this. Not everyone really wants to do this. I think it would be great to have more sociology and those kind of things in the curriculum, but how, that’s a challenge, how to get people hooked on that.

Sam: Maybe we need to get better at selling those connections to psychology and whatever else to computer science, in this case, but then there’s the challenges you just raised, that the students want to be doing computer science. Like you, they’ll say, “What’s the relevance of this?”

Christian: Yeah.

Sam: Do you think there’s a killer app out there for sustainability?

Christian: Maybe, but if so I don’t see it. If I saw it, I would be developing it. I would go home and start developing it, but I don’t really see it, unfortunately.

Sam: We’re writing a book of these interviews. We’re calling it Tomorrow’s Heroes, as if we were looking back at people who are doing good, and let’s described those as heroes. Even if people don’t want to be described as heroes, we’re doing it anyway. How would you see your sustainable superpower? What’s the special thing that you’re bringing to us?

Christian: Ooh, wow, that’s a lot of responsibility put on one. Obviously, as I’m writing my PhD thesis, it all comes down to the question like summarize the thesis in one sentence. Like I said, I think the research is already there, but just trying to connect the research that’s out there to practitioners that then apply this in everyday life, and in product design, hopefully, at some point, that would probably be what I would say. Obviously, like you said, I wouldn’t like it to be called like heroes or a superpower.

Sam: What’s the biggest success you’ve had in the last couple of years? You’ve almost written your thesis. I think that is a success. I’m going to name it for you. I think getting to that point of saying, “Right, I’m writing this, it’s nearly done.”

Christian: Yeah, yeah, I guess. It took me quite a while to find a spot in research where I really feel like, “Okay, that’s kind of resonating with the community.” The problem is when you’re doing a PhD, you’re doing this work you’re looking at every day for years, and you’re kind of like, “Everything is so obvious. This is so obvious, what am I doing here? I’m just saying the obvious things.”

Then you talk to other people and at some point they’re like, “Oh, that’s really interesting,” and they show some sincere interest in this kind of work. I think identifying those kind of spots, and obviously that culminates in a PhD, so, yeah, I would agree.

Sam: Do you consider yourself to be an activist?

Christian: I would love to say yes, but I have to say no.

Sam: Okay, there’s 2 questions in there. Why would you love to say yes, and why do you have to say no?

Christian: Because I feel like we need more activists, we need more action. Like I said before, just sitting back and waiting for things to happen, to turn out to be better, isn’t really what we should do, but it’s just more convenient to do exactly that, so I could do so much more besides my research, obviously.

Sam: What motivates you? What gets you out of bed in the morning?

Christian: That depends if it’s a work day or a weekend. I think one of the great things about doing a PhD is that you’re doing work that you really enjoy. I think that that is always something that I’ll look forward to. Yeah, that’s actually one of the things that kept me from writing in the past few months. I have so many other things that are so much more interesting. Obviously, everything else is much more interesting than writing up this piece of research.

Sam: Including doing the dishes?

Christian: Yeah, yeah, everything, cleaning your house top to bottom.

Sam: What’s the biggest challenge you’re looking forward to in the next couple of years?

Christian: In my personal life or in general?

Sam: Whatever you like.

Christian: Figuring out what to do next, honestly, that’s kind of the thing, because I have no idea where it’s going to be in one year from now.

Sam: If you could wave a magic wand and have a miracle occur by the time we wake up tomorrow morning, on San Jose time, what would that be?

Christian: Just one? We talked about so many problems here and we had this great workshop over the past 2 days, where we had about 100 problems that we put on the wall. Solving some of them would be awesome. I’m not going to go for the very cliché like world peace, but something like … Obviously, I have a vested interest in my PhD research, so solving some of those issues with the magic wand would be amazing, yeah.

Sam: Lastly, do you have any advice for our listeners?

Christian: Act responsibility, think responsibility, yeah, maybe just be aware of what your actions are and what they imply. Like I said, activism is a big thing here, but that takes a lot of commitment.


This conversation was recorded at CHI2016.

computing energy

Footprints of digital infrastructure


Knowing the impact can be used to start a conversation, to reflect on choices.

Dr Daniel Schien is an expert on the footprint of digital infrastructure. We talk about his background – Informatics in Berlin, developing software in Australia and teaching computing in Afghanistan. His research has involved the environmental impact of the transformation of the Guardian newspaper. He also teaches teaching environmental management and is involved in Green Hackathon.

Talking points

I was always interested of questions of ethical concern

Curriculum was technical content but it was informatics so questions of ethics and intersection of computers and society, not just the numbers.

Understanding of the consequence of future business

In making a comment on the environmental impact of a service we need to be clear that we are not making a comment on its value from another perspective. …that technology might be liberating…we are not claiming that environmental sustainability is the only criteria that should be applied.

Systems methods of dealing with the complexity of so-called wicked problems.

How can you deal with this wicked problem with no single optimisation criteria

The goal is to make sure that communities who are often marginalised in decision making…when other organisations are dominating the decision making, marginalising some actors. There is a potential here to make a change for good by teaching environmental managers -giving them the tools to involve everybody who is affected.

The Green Doors was a project to see how can we use ICT to make other practices more sustainable

(Superhero) Because I’m a computer scientist I’ve got an understanding of the anatomy of digital systems, but I bring into this a passion for sustainability, and an awareness of processes in the social domain. That’s a good starting point for doing this interdisciplinary work.

(Success) Daughter.

(Activist) No, my work takes place professionally. Activist compromises professional activities.

Guardian, making a difference…environmental footprint, I hope that other organisations follow

Chance here to create more awareness for consumers about the sustainability implications of consuming these services…a decision support tool. Knowing the impact can be used to start a conversation, to reflect on choices. The goal is not to blame people, to make people feel guilty, but to create more awareness and understanding.

By exposing themselves to criticism they should be applauded while other players are shying of that risk.

(Motivation) Chance to make a difference

(Challenges) having impact from academic position

Miracle: The biggest environmental concerns I have are around transportation, domestic heating and consumption.

Advice: trying to remain cool and aware, not too frantic about trying to play academic game

computing education

Searching for Sustainability


Searching per se doesn’t have ethical force, however, it can help you to make a better choice, as a consumer, acting, behaving and voting.

Dr Daniel Russell is a research scientist at Google where has been working in the area of search quality, with a focus on understanding what makes Google users happy, skilled and competent in their use of web search. As a “search anthropologist” he works to understand how people use the tools of technology to amplify their intelligence. So, the big question for the expert in search, how can we better search for a sustainable future?

In searching for this positive future we first consider the role of questions in operational aspects (eg how we can better find information on positioning solar panels), and behaviour change (should I take the bike to work today?), then moving onto the harder questions of sustainability, values, wicked problems, contested concepts, answering ethical dilemmas expanded in space and time and so on.

This conversation was recorded at CHI2016, where Dan was co-chair the CHI4Good programme.

Talking points

Possibility in computing to build your own universe

The beautiful AI systems I was building didn’t work for people…I need to sort this out…so I switched to human computer interaction, the art and science of making things simple to use, so people understand them,

The paradox is that the simplest things are the hardest to design – the things that seem straight-forward and obvious are often not.

What is expert now? Looking up is not the same as knowing

Helping to teach the world to become better searchers.

Searching when it the question gets complicated…that’s the million dollar question

Should is always “with respect to…”. The big shift, as we get better at machine learning, we’ll get better at interpreting questions. But “should”, that’s a tough one.

(Google is us, changing our identity as it changes our relationship to knowledge) yes, but this has been going on forever, when we invented writing we changed our relationship with knowledge, an externalised relationship with information

(Contested concepts – will we see answers to climate change in the same way we currently see movie listings?) Even things like stream flow rates can suddenly become contested. The choice to put it on the homepage is only for pretty clear topics.

(Who is deciding that clarity? Machine or people?) Great question…machine.

(Does Google have expectations of journalistic integrity?) We do our best to have an objective ranking function…we do not consider political intent or perspective.

Searching per se doesn’t have ethical force, however, it can help you to make a better choice, as a consumer, acting, behaving and voting.

Rise of availability of information combined with ability to find it. You now have a chance of finding out.

(Restorative socio-ecological transformation, what will be search’s contribution?) Helping people find out what is going on, discovering underlying causes.

To discover that the aquifers are well managed is a straightforward search. To discover that they are not is a more complex search – not for the least because there are people that don’t want you to know that. But at least now you have half a chance. You can, through Google, access many more information sources than you possibly could before. This is transforming. For sustainability, for making responsible ecologically valid choices. Now you can find out.

Is the truth drowning in the swamp of information? It is incumbent on you as the information consumer to be able to distinguish between publishers.
That’s why I teach people how to search.

One of the fundamental skills is how to discriminate information.

Searching for a positive future. There’s nothing intuitive about this. My big message is it’s easy to search, but it’s easy to get it wrong as well. Let me show you some skills that will make you a better, more accurate, more powerful searcher.

(Superpower:) The ability to teach. What I mean is teaching – a grand a glorious profession, but as a superhero powerful teacher would be someone that can communicate complex ideas easily and efficiently and help you understand what that has to do with your life.

Its relatively straightforward to teach someone how to do, say, calculus. But how do you teach judgement, how do you teach that skill of assessment?

A hero teacher would be someone who could come in and say ‘the world is big and complicated, there’s all sorts of trade offs, there’s stuff going on…let me show you, let me work with you to help you understand how to be a reasonable interpreter of what you see going on in the world so that you can get at the bottom of it.

Judgement requires that you have a bit of self knowledge. You have to understand why am I making this choice in this particular way.

(Success) Mooc. I’ve had 2.8 million students taking my class – teaching people how to do this kind of search.

(Activist) I am active in local things – local politics, local sustainability, local Sierra Club. I’m not a trans-national activist. I think as I get older I might become that.

Multiple political perspectives are respected at work, and there are a lot of politically active people there – so it’s not a barrier. So yes you can, but there are also well understood boundaries around political speech, and activist speech and activist action,

There’s also an interesting distinction between what the corporation does and what individuals do. Google as an organisation is very environmentally conscious.

(Motivation) It sounds trite, but teaching people to do this stuff really does. Communicate ideas…what we’ve been talking about, this is my passion, this is what motivates me. And music, and running, and being out in the world, diving. If I was to be a transnational activist, it would be about coral reefs, ocean acidification and so on. That motivates me in a negative way – it makes me sad and I want to fix it.

(Challenges) Packaging up a lot of these experiences and skills…a book.

(Miracle) Fix the oceans.

(Advice) be a discriminating consumer of knowledge that you find.

computing design values

Values: Working on problems that really matter

Batya Friedman

Multi-lifespan information systems, starts with premise that there are certain categories of problems that we’re unlikely to solve in a single human lifespan.

Dr Batya Friedman is a Professor in the Information School at the University of Washington. She tells us how her early interests in science, arts, education and politics all came together in value sensitive design. Batya’s recent work in multi-lifespan information systems has lessons for sustainability – in particular, the implications for intergenerational equity.

Talking points

Interested in how people organise society, and the choices they make, what sort of society we want to build and what tools we want to build – those themes have stuck with me.

Science museum…exploring residues that we create when we do any kind of work. What is the work we are doing, and when does that justify the kinds of waste we are producing?

I was teaching in a situation where we had 8 computers for 15 kids, traditionally the teacher would allocate them, but I turned it around to the students a and said how are we going to share these? And they came up with policies, and we would vote on those, and them implement them, and then reflect… the policies started to change as the kids saw what the implications and consequences where for this small community, and so they took those things into account as they allocated the resources they were using. It put in their hands this issue of resource allocation., and they were able to have their own conversations about what’s fair, what’s just, how do we create a caring society in our classroom around these kinds of resources. There wasn’t any whining about access to technology, there was mature conversation. The students learned to express what their needs were, what their desires were, and to listen to what other kids’ needs and desires were

(Thesis) Kids understand canonical things – stealing a bike, a car – the nature of the harm is clear, but when you move to the digital realm, it isn’t so clear to them what are the natures of the harm.

When we have new technologies and the conventions around them are not well understood, the adolescents I worked with fell back on moral reasoning – trying to identify harms, and then trying to identify the harms, and then coming up with a way of acting in the world that was respectful of the harms that they understood.

Human beings are tool users, and our tools become a part of what we do and how we go about being in the world. So there’s no strong delineation between a tool-use act, and a non-tool use act

We act in the world and we act with our tools

And as we act in the world, we ask ourselves these questions…am I hurting somebody by engaging in this action, is this fair…what’s the nature of justice, am I building community, am I being a good friend to somebody, am I being generous? These questions these qualities are part of how we want to be in the world, and technologies are an integral part of that.

The issue isn’t whether there is technology of a tool there, the interesting moment is when we introduce a new technology that gives us a very different way of acting or being in the world and we are unfamiliar with the ways in which it will intersect with all the other things we are doing.

By being conscious and intentional about some of the value implications that we are more likely to have effects that are positive or at least to avoid some of the more egregious negative impacts.

Designers of technology don’t control all the aspects of how these technologies will be appropriated and used by society, but they do control some of the important pieces. And if we don’t attend to those then I think there may be inadvertent consequences where had we been attentive, we could have been proactive on something positive.

Does the technology embody values? – yes, the architecture of the technology makes somethings easier and other things harder if not impossible.

Historically the greatest protection on privacy was just the amount of effort it would take. Rules and practices evolved from a time when you had to physically go down to the courthouse and look at records if you thought something was amiss, but it was accessible to you, you could examine them if you thought there was good need. Now you can do that search from your house, with very little effort. That balance between privacy and transparency, that delicate balance in place for a certain kind of technology, that has been changed. So the question for society is what balance do we want between privacy and transparency, then to put in place the technical infrastructure so we can experience that balance that we think is beneficial for society.

We hold a multiplicity of values, and they all sit in delicate balance with each other, just like the strands of a spider-web. If you pick up one value, put pressure on one part of the web, all the other values move with it. Two things can be in tension and together that tension holds them up. These tensions and how they sit in relation to one another is the nature of human life. So the question is how do we hold onto them. Take something like calmness, or the desire to be left alone, and also the desire to be part of community, also to be able to be responsive if someone has a need or emergency. We value all of those things simultaneously – holding onto that is the design challenge.

We can question the presumption about building more and more widgets. How many microprocessors do people have? We can ask is that sustainable? In therms of the resources, power? We’re building things now with the presumption of 24/7 access to power and network, and people are increasingly putting data and activities that are critical to their lives into infrastructure that needs to be on and functioning 24/7. We created this idea of 24/7 ubiquity, we can question that.

Multi-lifespan work, starts with premise that there are certain categories of problems that we’re unlikely to solve in a single human lifespan.

Multi-lifespan because of the nature of the problem: 1. limitations of the human pscyhe…lasting peace…first generation agree to keeping children alive, second generation grow up in environment where they don’t feel threatened, maybe third generation can really build a peace. 2. tears in social fabric (Rwanda) 3. Environmental timescales

We need to recognise that these problems and solutions are going to unfold over longer periods of time.

How do we engage in this longer term design thinking? We can help people understand where their lifespan fits, how that relates in to environmental time-frames, so you can begin to see how decisions in your lifespan can begin to affect and mesh with what might be going on on an environmental timeline. We can think about doing supporting people doing co-design 20-40 years in the future. What might be the systemic conditions in 40 years? then we can bring people back to “well what if we made some different design choices now?”

We’re at the start of the development of systems of international justice – just like where democracy was 200 years ago.

While can be discouraged about how our societies are evolving, we can point to areas of real progress, and that’s really important to hold onto

Take skeptism seriously, then go build something

Starting to do the work, slowly doing the work as best one can, trying to having eyes open to complexity, then over time one has a proof of concept about how you could make progress.

Working on problems that really matter is important

You could spend your life working on things that you know you can solve, but if you and others don’t really care about those problems, then maybe there’s a better way to spend your time.

If you work on something you care about, even if it is really hard, and you fail, or you don’t make progress, at least you know you are working on something that really matters.

For me if failure isn’t a actual possibility, then it doesn’t meet the criteria of a problem for me to work on.

There are things that really matter to us where we know we can do better.

(Learning from stone carving) Continually working the whole, without ever being able to see the whole. I’m comfortable going into a project not knowing where it is going to end or what it will look like at the end. You can use principles and be adaptive in the goals, and as you move into the project you can understand better what the next move will be. If I try and prescribe things, the solution ends up being brittle.

(Superpower) Systemic thinking and approach, it is organic and in some ways spatial or visual, and context, situation, to technically what is there, and then wait until I know how to act. Time is crucial. The same with research, we can be designing a system, and we don’t know yet what the next right thing to do is.

(Success) 25 years ago even saying you were working in values and technology was considered out there, now there are many people doing this.

(Activist) Not in a traditional way, but I am beginning to think of myself as a public intellectual, playing that role.

I would like to participate more in a public conversation about what kind of science and technology we should be engaging in. I would like us to be more thoughtful about which technology we should build out – that is a choice. What sort of society do we want to live in, what technologies do we want to support that?

Yes, I do work on margins, and those margins are always moving. What are the hard questions, but also what are the socially ethically important questions with respect to our tool use and infrastructure building?

(Motivation) Curiosity about each day

(Challenge) Crossroads…art, some big ideas, but also pushing at those margins, multi-lifespan work. And contributing to public discussion… different forms of expression…theatre, animation, artefacts…stories.

(Miracle) Peace

(Smallest thing biggest impact) Sleep: I mean that, seriously, a lot of aggressions and micro-aggressions…when people are exhausted they get cranky, if everyone on the planet could get a really good night sleep on the same night and reset

Advice: Slow down. Get a good nights sleep and wake up in the morning without an agenda, just opening your eyes and looking at the world and what it is offering and take that opportunity. Our society is so goal directed, we don’t see what is in front of us.

This conversation was recorded at CHI2016.

communication community computing participation

Empowering communities


Working with communities to empower them rather than to change them.

Rob Comber is a a Lecturer in Computer Mediated Communication based at Newcastle University’s Open Lab. With training in psychology, Rob has worked on the role of online communities and now is focussed on food, activism, urban space, and sustainability – all through a lens of civic engagement.

Talking points

How people construct, create, and maintain relationships with each other through some of the mechanisms of pressing buttons and friending each other

How can you create a community when all you can really say is “I like this person” or “I like this thing that they’ve said”?

“Do online communities have the same characteristics as real communities?” is where I started, but I found there’s no real difference between them – same values, people commit to them, spend time building relationships and doing things.

Online, digital, virtual isn’t replacing but augmenting what we are doing in our everyday lives.

Yes it is easier to press like…but you’ve done a lot of work to construct that community around you – so saying it is easier to press like is a bit like saying that if you are already a member of that club then it is easier for you to open the door and walk in.

So the idea that “slacktivism” is easy hides the work people have to do beforehand. It’s public too – you have to make a real commitment to say this is who I am. People can use that quite carefully to construct an image of themselves – this is the person who I am, and this statement is of value because I am making that commitment in front of other people

A challenge of looking at online communities is the romanticisation of offline communities.

Being exposed to poly-vocality, multiple voices and perspectives really enriches the way that we think about the world.

Why do we buy two to get one free, when we only need half?

Trying to find ways to connect communities together to improve the sharing of knowledge and expertise that they already have…inclusion and social sustainability.

Issues of resilience – looking at unrealised and under-realised capital that’s already there

We found a focus on behaviour change was quite useful if you wanted to stop someone from doing something, but very difficult to do if you wanted someone to try something new and to keep doing it.

Civic engagement: not saying “we know best we can tell you what to do and here’s how you can make your city better”, instead it’s “we know you know how to make your city better, we want you to tell us so we can help you do it”.

Working with communities to empower them rather than to change them.

Realise that we don’t have that power to magically change a community, it’s much more beneficial to work together with them.

Role of a Civic University means the local community is not just the place where we are, but it is the place that we are.

We have to engage with the issues that arise here, partly because it is a disadvantaged area, but also because it is fundamental to what a university should be doing.

We have to be really able to demonstrate value and if we can show that it is intertwined and embedded in the lives of the people around the university then you don’t have to struggle to find why you are doing what you are doing, it comes from the people who are there already.

Water, energy and food nexus – trying to understand how these resources come together…how they are connected as systems.

How do you know if engagement is doing good? You get a sense of it, do the people I engage with see value in that engagement? Do they see outcomes they might have otherwise not anticipated? Unlike behaviour change work where we decide what we will change and therefore can evaluate it…but with engagement…what has changed for you?

We try to activate the activists. Find people who will take on that engagement and take on the role of saying “we need something more here, we need something better here” –whatever they decide. It’s being able to say that when we have to leave, that it becomes sustained by the community.

What a community should be…agonism…continually questioning the world around us.

We’re good at looking at ourselves and asking “is it good now”, we’re not so good at asking “will we still be happy with this situation in 5, 10, 50 years?”

A sense of questioning the status quo, but also questioning the future of that

Questioning across scales, but identifying other communities where you might be having an impact is a significant challenge even before you think about what that impact might be.

A sense of belonging is important, place tied to history, but we rarely think of a sense of belonging in terms of future generations.

In the same way that we look to previous generations for our sense of place, future generations belong to us in that way.

People think of technology as the future, so let’s use technology to represent the future back to us now.

Engagement: there’s no simple message of how to convince people to change behaviour, the point is that you’re not really convincing them, they have to convince themselves.

The long term element of engagement is a time scale of 3, 10 or 50 years – compared to nice results after a year or six months or a year for publishing “this is what we did it was amazing”.

We recognise the easy life, but if that was an amazing future then we wouldn’t need to be subversive.

The questioning itself is an important part – we need to take this critical stance in designing technology, even if the response is that we won’t design technology. This is different from a basis (of computing) of selling more new stuff

It is important to say can we sell less stuff? Can we even ask that question?

(Sustainable Superpower): People to be able to see connections between the things that they do – spatially, temporally, socially.

(Success): Being and to work in a research lab that values engagement and in ten years time we might be able to say that we did some good in hat engagement.

(Activist): I wouldn’t see myself as an activist. I wouldn’t see myself as the person who has the responsibility as the person in the community who knows and who knows which action is best. Academic research, when it’s well intentioned, when it’s working best through engagement is facilitative – is the aim of that to facilitate activism? I think so. Am I a facilitator? I hope so.

(Motivation): People. Above all else, taking a humanist perspective, and saying people are good, we need to work from that as a basic principle of what we are doing.

(Challenge): Engagement – being able to demonstrate that engagement is useful.

(Miracle): 100% turn out in every bit of local, national government – for people to wake up in the morning and really think about the society around them and something that they are involved and not to just take the easy life of sailing through it.

(Advice): Think about the world around you, and the people that are in it, and work with those people.

This conversation was recorded at Open Lab in Newcastle in September 2015.

documentary participation

Participatory documentary storytelling

David Green

Ways of using the structures of documentary storytelling to bring user generated content together…interesting stories and broadening participation.

David Green is a researcher at the University of Newcastle’s Open Lab. His innovative Red Tales is an participatory interactive documentary.

Talking points

I wanted to be an architect, I can’t remember when I changed my mind, but I became interested in photography.

Wildlife photography got me outdoors

Best stories and most engaging stories come from a real heartfelt connection and appreciation.

That’s why I find myself drawn to telling stories about the natural world, I find that’s something I can connect with.

I’m interested in how technology can be used to support people in communities to produce documentaries. So often there are interesting stories that are not getting told because it’s not on the media agenda. Conservation groups working to replant areas on the outskirts of towns – this kind of work is really interesting, and the people doing the work are really interesting, but these stories don’t get told. There must be a way that recent developments technology can enable these stories get out there.

Youtube is good but stories get lost in the vastness of it all.

Ways of using the structures of documentary storytelling to bring user generated content together…interesting stories and broadening participation.

There is value in telling stories, even if no one is listening right now…telling a story to yourself is valuable…and the process is important community building.

The motivation for producing isn’t necessarily to connect with a massive audience.

There’s a complex relationship between storytelling and fact. So does a participatory approach mean letting go of factual basis? Good question, I’ve thought about that a lot. Documentary is a representational form, not fact. There are opportunities for fact checking, to minimise potential for mis-representation.

(Activist?) I consider myself to be a researcher at the moment. I’d love to be an activist, it sounds sexy. I’m doing what I can, I believe that there’s more power in collective action. I’m part of a movement that’s receptive to change. I’m trying to do my bit.

(Motivation?) I’m motivated by what I see are some big problems in the world related to wilful ignorance. I’m motivated by what I see as a serious threat to our existence: climate change; widespread destruction of environment; deforestation – irreversible damage that we’re causing to this planet just by being in it. I’ve come here this morning with a plastic coffee cup – even with the best of intentions it’s very difficult to live sustainably.

Things need to change in a really big way, but this can only start in really small ways. So I’m trying to do my bit, and helping others to do their bit – together we’re strong.

(Challenges?) Political change is afoot.

(Miracle?) Working together, collaboration.

(Advice?) Get out there and photograph things, you never know what might be useful.

This conversation was recorded at CHI 2015.

computing crisis

Social computing responses to disasters

Leysia Palen

In our physical social networks, neighbourhoods and neighbours matter – and our digital neighbours matter too.

Leysia Palen is Professor of Computer Science, and Professor and Founding Chair of the newly established Department of Information Science at the University of Colorado Boulder. We talk of crisis informatics and the transformational role that social computing can play in the way society responds to mass emergencies and disasters.

Talking points

Obligation to think of computing as vision of future that is not simply entertaining but one through which we can engage with natural environment and lead more responsible lives

Everyday connected technologies

Default settings on calendars…culture of environment in which technology is created in gets baked into technology itself…colonising values to different places.

Technology is hugely value laden and they may or may not be your values

In a crisis, everyone goes into an intensified information seeking mode

The information gap is an opportunity for the crowd to help

Disaster – there’s a hazard that exceeds what the emergency personnel can respond to…even the emergency responders don’t have all the information – a disruption to social order across the board

We adapt to the events that are happening – what are the salient problems for which research will have something useful to say?

We have an ethical responsibility, an obligation to do something that matters

We have to be agile to think about what is useful research as these different events happen around the world

We wouldn’t presume to think we can be useful for something we can’t understand…so we try to partner with people on the ground

We’ve been tracking how social media crisis behaviour has changed

We try to debunk from the start – the movie panic – the media and twitter focusses on the sensational and silly, but there’s a great deal of stuff underneath the surface

Finding it can be difficult, but those who need it, they find it and do something with it – they’re persistent because they need it.

People are looking for the signal in the noise , and we need to separate the global audience versus the geovulnerable

Who people communicate with during a disaster is different than before

They’re looking for individuals who can provide information

Individuals in neighbourhoods who are able to localise the messages from emergency management

But when people are in hugely stressful situations they’re not able to manage the information, then we get people on the outside who want to help, and curate information – increasing the signal of the good information.

Multiple forms of self organising communication mechanisms

A research focus is how do we amplify the signal?

Emergency management social media protocols…those that work best are those that.. might have a list of ten but review and say these five worked, and these other things…responding to a changing environment

Local emergency management groups, they need to perceive themselves as being experimental in this as well

The practices around outgoing messaging are becoming very good, but listening strategy…they’re not listening.

They’re very good at listening well, but how do you listen well when you through social media don’t know if the people who need help most are able to express themselves

A terrible situation…but people remain analytical, if anything because of the desperate situation they’re working within they have to become concise and precise about their actions

The idea that people can’t work through things, that they’re helpless – this is dangerous – people have always been their own advocates in a disaster, so we need to be careful not to project these helpless myths onto social media then we’re not really able to see the potential

Social media is a stage upon which people are acting, it’s a place of convergence. So even though we can see the jokes, the dark humour and the sensational stuff, but underneath that is really important work being done.

So our job as researchers developing better technologies for our future is amplifying that important work

We need to pay attention to practice – how people actually do things.

Things happen in situations, and our technology has to be able to adapt to that.

Working in disaster response…lends itself to policy design, and that, like technology creation it prefers rational ideas… disasters are disorderly and we want them to be orderly…but the way we can look at how new characteristics (such as social media) is by looking at how we actually practice them in a disaster

The emergence of best practice technology solutions…we’re in a state of massive change, it would be comforting to have all the answers, but we can’t presume we can freeze it all tomorrow and that’s the answer – but we’re in a stage of invention

We need to prepare, but we must be willing to be inventive, be adaptable and be not quite right and iterate

We see stronger responses – higher resilience – from areas that are prepared with good social networks already – it is a good thing to extend that to our technological practice

In our physical social networks, neighbourhoods and neighbours matter – and our digital neighbours matter too.

Haiti…wasn’t so much social media from on the ground…but the international response…open street maps, digital humanitarianism…the attention brought to events through observant and curious audience might start out as concern and oogling but can and does transform into real help

People want to do more than digital prayers and clicking for donations – but they want to do more.

There’s new attention to idea that disasters and management of resilience is both a highly localised activity – communities need to solve these things for themselves – but there’s also this outward facing, attachments to other communities

There’s something about this pleasant tension between this highly local and this global set of relationships

People want to help themselves they do want to help others – they want to feel connected to many others and to our local communities

(what can we learn from crisis to the longer, slow burn crisis?) Hurricanes, wildfire and so on are going to become more violent, more frequent…how do we communicate risk? how do we understand risk to our planet, to our children and grandchildren.

How do we understand risk so that we can change our behaviour?

It’s about communicating risk but it is also about communicating solutions to different populations.

(Activist?) I am an activist, I’m an activist of knowledge, of reality, of sober and sombre understandings of our relationship with our technological world, and each other, and I am sympathetic to the problems that we face.

As a researcher I try not to bring any presumptions into the questions that I bring there but to bring a critical eye to bore through the rhetoric of things like disaster which are politically charged.

I pursue the truth – sounds pretty trite I know – and I try to communicate that. I feel very strongly about finding the right words and communicating that for different audiences, so in that way I am an activist.

(Motivation?) I want to know, I want others to know, I want us to be concious and conscientious.

(Challenges?) We’ve been working in Crisis Informatics for 10 years, we’ve made a lot of inroads with students being able to take on more complex problems – I want to get beyond dismantling the myths and work even deeper on the problems.

As new chair of department I want to create a curriculum for our undergraduate students and have them be able to address a range of societal problems as well as commercial challenges, but in this way that deals with data in ethical, mathematically responsible, ethnographically responsible ways.

(Miracle?) That my children and all of our children wouldn’t have to worry about disasters and the effects of climate change. And that if they do worry, which they will, that we’ve left them the tools – intellectual and built – to mitigate whatever it is that we’ve given them.

(Advice?) Be attentive. Don’t presume. Be watchful for how technology is driving us in particular directions, but also don’t be over-cautious about that either.

computing design energy

Participating co-developers

Maria Angela Ferarrio

The task becomes to bring values into technology you develop.

Dr Maria Angela Ferrario is a Senior Research Associate at Lancaster Management School working on Catalyst, an EPRSC funded community-led research project aimed at developing next generation digital technologies for social innovation. Her research interests lie in innovation studies, interdisciplinary research methods and the impact of digital innovation on society. We talk about the On Supply initiative on the Isle of Tiree and using participatory development to overcome tensions between innovation and sustainability.

Talking points

There is a thread – understanding of human relationships and human dynamics, how we interact and how this is communicated.

Digital innovation for social innovation, and what sustainability means in that.
The sustainability of life on the planet as a frame has been a the forefront of my mind since I was a teenager.

I had a problem, innovation, especially digital innovation seems to be contrasting with sustainability. So I questioned that a lot.

(Italian philosopher) Innovation is going to happen, you decide whether it happens with or without values you believe in.

The task becomes to bring values into technology you develop.

Being open to change, and values of democracy and participation at the core of technology.

Respect for people we work with – the people we work with are equal partners in research.

How technology could first investigate and then facilitate the synchronisation of energy consumption to the time varying availability of renewable energy supply.

We used to have energy on demand, now that is not the case, what does that mean to our daily behaviour?

Energy as a community resource

Core characteristic is the time varying ability of energy supply

(Children exploring with energy treasure hunt) thinking about energy as positive force you can harness, but also something you need to respect.

A Real butterfly affect…you do not know the reach or the ripples of your actions…that a child found a previously thought extinct butterfly on a school trip exploring energy makes me hopeful there are many different entry points to complex societal problems – they can be tackled in many different ways.

The most important thing is a mind set that is open to change and also open to let things go, and also open to transcendence.

Our participants were most definitely co-developers.

Establishing an empathetic relationship with the element (wind) makes the value of the number deeper and more connected to action and change.

(from participant) “…we are in a privileged position to learn to synchronise our lives to natural rhythm.

If I can adapt my life to the production of natural renewable energy that won’t be to the detriment of the planet, I don’t see why I’m not going to use my time to do that.

The key motivation for people was to learn how to synchronise their consumption behaviour to the availability of clean energy for a time when renewable clean energy has a bigger share in the basket

We are aware that at the moment we have energy whenever we want, but we are also aware that we are having a detrimental impact on the environment

So it’s a good thing for me to prepare to change my patterns of consumption for a time when renewable energy is going to be more available and at the same time learn practices that are less aggressive on the prospect of sustainability of life for the planet of the future.

Even I, totally committed to the sustainability agenda, found myself going to the shop to buy a coffee (after experimenting with a self imposed rule of not brewing a coffee when the campus wind turbine wasn’t spinning).

This mentality of “I need it, I need it now”, is so ingrained in us. We need to accept that, or weakness, but it’s good to be aware of that. It’s good to play with technologies that unearth that.

We learned we live in an industrial age still. The 9-5 pattern, going to work regardless of the light…we started thinking, what if our life practices were more in tune with seasonal patterns.

I’m very conscious that energy is a metaphor for climate change, sustainability.

The way we approach sustainability should be grounded

(Motivation?) The life on the planet. I’m not religous but I quite treasure the fact that I had the opportunity to be alive on the planet, and like me, the billions of different people and creatures.

For me, sustainability is giving the opportunity to this life to be self sustaining.

(Activist?) Active but not activist

(Challenge?) Sustaining myself because when you start getting your head around the complexity of the word sustainability, you can see how you may try to work on a path of values that are quite contrasting from the mainstream, so it’s a bit of a compromise between the two.

(Miracle?) For me the miracle is that everybody at the same time will wake up with a magic wand – the most interesting experience of seeing how people decide to have the world look like.

(Advice?) Use less the word “wrong” and ask more the question “why?” whenever we hear words and sentences from people we do not agree with.

computing design economics

Change through informal exchange

John Harvey

Informal exchange is binding, it creates ties, it creates social obligation.

John Harvey is a researcher at the Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute at the University of Nottingham. An economic anthropologist, John is researching systems to encourage non-monetary forms of exchange such as freecycle, couch surfing and his own Neehoy. He talks with us here about prosociality and empathy as core design strategies.

Talking points

As much time, effort and inter-personal meaning goes into the informal economy

There are two fundamentally different ways people come at understanding the economy. There’s the formalist approach – the idea that we’re all rational people, and that we rationalise, economise in the presence of scarce resources, and the opposite side to that – the substantivist approach would argue that neither of those presuppositions are true the idea of rationality is not universal and the idea of scarcity is not universal – they are constructs. The formalists might say the economy is the aggregate of all individual actions, whereas the substantives may say the economy is simply the way that people provision and furnish for themselves – they not might be trying to maximise utility.

There’s always been this sense of alienation when it comes to exchange. You might consider some people you talk to the same as yourself – you might give or share with them readily, or some people you might consider as other – you might want some balanced exchange.

Alienation refers to the objects in our lives – the idea that some objects are transferable, and some objects are not transferable – we keep them within our kin, our friends, our family. Some items assume a collective ownership – the food in the fridge. That comes from a shared mutual understanding of who we are. Introducing otherness introduces the notion of debt.

New technology is changing the way we look at things – we can belong to multiple communities online that we wouldn’t necessarily interact with otherwise…this is changes the dynamics of how we procure things for our own lives.

(Couch-surfing, wikipedia, creative commons) These new forms of collective ownership are fascinating.

We should be designing economic policy that helps people to feel well-being rather than increased GDP.

I think GDP is a terrible measure of prosperity

The free market…has helped to liberate people, but potentially it imprisons them in an iron cage of consumption.

Efficiency is a good thing…the less damage we can do to the planet, the less resources we can extract the better. Efficiency as it relates to production starts to become controversial – as you put efficient tools into the hands of a few, you reduce the workforce.

Centralising production…full of conundrums…

We’re (Neehoy) expanding the ideas of free-cycle to large scale asset management.

Most of the focus in asset management has been on high value assets, but this overlooks the millions of pounds tied up in furniture. In health, much of this is dormant, sat idle, if we can reduce this by a fraction then not only is the organisation saving money, it’s also a great thing for the environment.

Prosociality means to me a voluntary intentional behaviour that results in benefits for another.

In rational economics this is explained by the utilitarian self – if you act in a way that is kind to other people, you have a warm glow – you feel good about yourself – you’ll feel good and that’s why you do it it’s selfish. Similarly they’ll say when you see somebody in distress you’ll feel negative, you’ll feel guilt. Acting kindly is helping to relieve that sense of guilt. Alternatively to that utilitarian concept of altruism, that egoistic interpretation, are ideas about empathic concern – the ability to imagine the other. What other people endure and perceive in their own lives.

We see these rational behavioural economic assumptions in design. Recently we’ve seen a lot of work that attempts to nudge behaviour, it takes an individual to be at best to be rational and at worst to be irrational but within confines – bounded rationality. …HCI is well positioned to present information, cues to try to manipulate behaviour, but it is fraught.

Activist: HCI an interventionary field, we don’t just describe the world, we try to change it – it is inescapably an activist discipline. There is a moral obligation of HCI researchers to consider impacts.

I’m naturally anarchistic – I like decentralisation, I like giving tools to people so that they can do something meaningful with their life. Unless those tools are created in participation with local cultures you run the risk of cultural imperialism.

I like the idea that technology can help people to become kinder, freer.

I celebrating differences rather than looking for universal principles.

Streetbank: a small charity, encouraging people to act more kinder to other people that doesn’t rely on reciprocity – I think that is a beautiful thought.

Pay-it-forward still has notion of money that involves debt, the moral stance of obligation, I like play, play-it-forward. Could you create an economic based on these Utopian principles? Not likely to happen but a nice thought.

We need both sides of the economy, there needs to a redress of the balance between those two sides.

Advice: Be willing to fail. Don’t take failure as end of the road – there’s so much to learn from failure it is almost virtuous.

computing education

Standing on the brink

Elina Eriksson

Even in a future of scarcity, we still need technology, we just have to design it very differently.

Dr Elina Eriksson is interested in issues of usablity and user-centred design to promote change; both organizational change and change in individual behaviour.

Elina has multiple affiliations at KTH Royal Institute of Technology. She is in the School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), the Department of Media Technology and Interaction Design (MID) and in research groups Green Leap and the Centre for Sustainable Communications (CESC).

Talking points

I realised quite early on that I don’t only want to work in computer science in programming, but I also want to get close to people and change stuff – so Human Computer Interaction became my major.

There is definitely a gender issue in how computer science portrays itself.

The Brundtland definition is talked about but it’s not really operationable.

The environmental aspects to sustainability are clearly important, with climate change, but I also feel very strongly for the social side of sustainability.

Circles within circles, we have to live within the bound of our earth.

Sometimes I think we are not good enough at reflecting on what we are doing and why. We can get so enthusiastic about new technology that we don’t really look back at what we are doing.

To create smart sustainable cities we need a bottom up view – what practices are making a difference and how can we help these practices through infrastructure?

Sustainability needs us to work on several different levels at the same time. Both at the policy legislation levels, and to change social norms – the culture.

For HCI this means a focus on norm-critical design. Technology can help people reflect more on their own practices.

HCI has such a suite of methods for helping improve work practices, now is the time to scale that up to the community – to smart cities.

Students report a cognitive dissonance, on one hand they are taught to develop new cool Apps, and on the other we come with our Sustainability course and tell them that this might not be the best way of working.

We focus on predicaments rather than problems. Problems are things we can solve, whereas predicament might be situations that are not solvable.

You have to find ways to work with a predicament, but there might not be one single solution.

We think it is important to be honest with students, that we are standing on the brink.

We try to find a balance between facts and values.

We can’t require them to have a particular value, but we can show…that as soon as we talk about the future, it is no longer a fact based science, it’s about values – what kind of future would we like to have.

ICT is interwoven with everything we do today in society, how much ICT is involved in efficiency, how much our norms and beliefs and culture is based on what we meet in the media

We play a discussion based board game – Gaming in Sustainability through Communication.

(Challenge) integrate sustainability into programme.

As long as the main goal of our education is forcing our students to work in an unsustainable manner, we will never reach a sustainable future.

How can we reach a sustainable future if we still have a consumer society?

Technology is a problem, but it can also solve things, dematerialise and make processes more efficient.

The fundamental problem of working with sustainability – it’s such a big system to change.

Daniel Pargman

computing energy

Energy hungry constellations

Oliver Bates

The extravagant users…if they are getting the same utility as the lowest users – having the same sorts of experiences, then why do they need all these things?

Oliver Bates is a PhD candidate at the Lancaster University School of Computing and Communications. Oliver’s research focuses on understanding energy impacts in the home for which he uses using a mixed method involving lots of sensors and lots of talking and listening. He presented a paper on this work at CHI 2014 called “Towards an holistic view of the energy and environmental impacts of domestic media and IT“.

Talking points:

(why in computing?) I enjoy learning new things and the idea that I’m helping somebody else

Ecofeedback is not particularly successful in reducing energy consumption – somewhere around 5 and 15%.

What are people doing and how can we do it differently?

People design new things and people buy the new things and people use the new things, it’s a self fulfilling energy growth.

I like the thought of undesigning technology

Poeple don’t think about the energy they just want to get on with doing what they do

Because you can watch video on demand, you do…

How devices are being used in every day life

It’s hard to relate to what seems like an arbitrary number

The differences in what people do can be subtle but have huge differences in impact

the more devices you own, the larger the impacts…larger more complex arrangements of devices had twice the embodied impact

Bigger things and more things use more power

Devices physically connected together: constellations
Constellations of devices increase the impact for a given activity

If you own a phone for a year the embodied dwarfs the amount of direct energy
If you charge a phone for two hours at 6 watts, that’s nothing compared to a laptop at 50-60W for 8 hours.

Longevity, across anything is more important, especially for high impact devices.

If a thing has high embodied impacts and it has a higher electricity demand, at what point do I go, ‘this devices uses way too much electricity and I’ve had it for a while, I should buy a more efficient thing, but therefore releasing more carbon’?

(Finding the sweetspot) calculate the embodied emissions, whichever method you want, you need to then know the times of use – say a laptop you charge 8 hours a day, using 50W across those hours…for me I want the direct energy to at least be greater than the embodied impacts. I don’t want something to be created before I’ve matched its emissions – that feels like a waste, I don’t know why. Double the impact maybe, getting your impact’s worth.

The numbers on the life cycle impact vary hugely according to the method (cost, weight etc) and how deep you go in the analysis.

If I say “I can reduce my impact by replacing all my media and IT devices with new ones that are 15% more efficient” then that is a completely misinformed decision…you’ve bought a whole new thing creating 1000s of kilograms of CO2 in the atmosphere just because you can save 15% per month in your energy bill – that is a bad decision.

I don’t think there are obvious rules of thumb. That’s part of the problem with ecofeedback, it’s not like a blanket rule you can apply.

People that owned more stuff used more stuff…a difference of 12 lightbulbs to 2 lightbulbs

People make choices…the smallest user was 164Wh, the largest 4135Wh…about 40 times more impact for pretty much the same experience.

The two largest two consumers used 40% of the total consumption, which is huge and they did have large inventories, but in the middle the variation comes down to times of use and not leaving stuff on.

(the bang for the buck comes from addressing the top users). But needs context.

Consumption was a product of how they configured their things.

Constellations amplify electricity use.

If these people can it it this low impact way and be happy, then how do we get that message to the high impact users, especially if they don’t care? I don’t want to be the guy the guy that says “you need to throw out all your stuff”. Extreme policy but may be we need to be extreme sometimes, if we are trying to get from 15% to 65% energy efficiency then maybe that’s the radical steps we need to push for.

Activist: No, I’m too comfortable
Challenges: Domestic demand on cloud services. Lifetime impacts. Motivations
Advice: Discuss how you do things at home…acknowledge that (other people) get on just fine by having a ‘lesser’ quality of experience, but it’s OK…maybe we can share. I like the idea of sharing but I also like the idea of my own space and my own stuff.

Human power station

climate change computing systems

Understanding systems

Steve Easterbrook

The 95% certainty is itself problematic, because it is a very high level summary of lots of different details…if you pick the science apart there are some areas where we are much more certain than that, and there are other areas where there is a lot uncertainty…the basics of how the greenhouse effect works and then what happens if you add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere – that’s not 95% certain, that’s 100% certain. It’s a stable piece of science that’s been around more than 100 years.

Dr Steve Easterbrook studies contributions of computing and software to the challenge of dealing with climate change at the University of Toronto. His focus is on climate informatics, in particular, how climate scientists develop computational models to improve their understanding of earth systems and climate change.

Talking points:

Large complex pieces of software that have been built over many many years by large teams of people.

Each climate model is something like a million lines of code, that has taken 10-20 years to build…and there are around 25 models being built around the world…and they take different approaches. Each is building coupled systems, they sometimes swap parts.

Contributing to the models is a long slow peer-reviewed process.

What surprised me the most, I thought the models are for predicting the future – that’s what we see in the media, we see these projections of climate change over the coming century…I thought these people were essentially futurologists, how is this going to play out in the medium and long term…but it turns out they build the models to do experiments…comparing how well the model performs with observational data of recent past or even the distant past.

How they do experiments, they might have an area in the model that they know is weak, that it doesn’t match the observational data very they’ll set this up as a formal experiment, they’ll create a hypothesis that says “here’s a way of improving the model by changing the way it simulates a particular part of the process”…so the hypothesis is that changing model the will improve how it simulates a particular part of the climate….my favourite example is getting the Indian Monsoons right…they run these as experiments with the existing model as the control, then go through a peer review to get the change included in the model…so on a day to day basis, almost everything they do is set up as an experiment.

With a faster machine they increase the resolution, each simulation takes two weeks.

Simulating typical weather, not what it going to do on any given day

For some scientists the broader politicisation is very frustrating, they want to keep their heads down…they’re not trained to communicate their work to wider audiences.
The other reaction is people that want to get out and give their side of the story because they feel the media does a very poor job at representing the science and what the scientists do.

The science is unbelievably complicated.

There’s an asymmetry, saying “it’s all bunkum” or more subtly “we’re not sure enough, there’s too many uncertainties, we shouldn’t take action yet”…that’s a very easy message to say, especially when faced with a complex science, especially when the public hears “this is a complex science, how can the scientists be that sure?”.

The 95% certainty is itself problematic, because it is a very high level summary of lots of different details…if you pick the science apart there are some areas where we are much more certain than that, and there are other areas where there is a lot uncertainty…the basics of how the greenhouse effect works and then what happens if you add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere – that’s not 95% certain, that’s 100% certain. It’s a stable piece of science that’s been around more than 100 years.

Scientists like to become famous by overturning existing bodies of knowledge, and when a piece of science endures for 100 years or more, we’re not 95% sure, this is uncontentious science in anyway whatsoever.

The broad story that if we keep on adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere the planet will keep on warming, there’s no doubt in the scientific community about that, the uncertainty is around exactly how much warming and exactly when will it occur.

The big picture there is no doubt about, the uncertainty is about the details.

The email leak has brought many of the climate scientists to the realisation that they have to do a better job of the communication, they can’t leave it to others to do because there aren’t any others..there aren’t other communities that understand the science enough to explain it.

I’d like to see more telling the story of what what scientists do on a day-to-day basis in terms that other people can understand.

The more you change the climate, the less you can be sure that the models are capturing it correctly.

Tipping points are really hard to predict, we can see that they might be there, but making predictions about exactly when they would occur is really hard.

It might be counter-productive…to put a date on climate change such as a 5 window to take action…because as the end of that window approaches you undermine your entire message, because people take from that “5 years and then disaster occurs, we’ve got to 5 years and where’s the disaster?”…the right message is climate change is already with us, and it’s causing all sorts of chaos around the world, it’s just not evenly distributed.

Specific windows are a bad idea…specific goals as well, 2 degrees of warming, we’re approaching that now, or at least we’re approaching the point where we are locked into two degrees of warming…as we get closer and closer to the point of no return, what’s the message about that? well we were wrong about 2 degrees, maybe we can go to 2 and a half, maybe 3…and you are completely undermining the message about consequences when you set these thresholds -it’s an incremental change, it will occur and it is occurring at different rates and different severities around the world.

Climate change is an incremental problem with a huge degree of inertia, we have to act now to affect what the world is going to be like in fifty years time, that’s really hard for people to comprehend, on the other hand, if we talk to people about making our cities cleaner, making the air cleaner, that’s a very easy message and where there are immediate impacts, so one of the things we can do around climate change is work on solutions that have those immediate benefits, but that also contribute towards the longer term problem.

Climate change is the elephant in the room, no matter what we achieve in terms of sustainability, if we don’t tackle climate change then it’s going to be serious, it’s going to undermine our other efforts, but on the other hand you could turn that around, and say why don’t we build a network of sustainability initiatives that together add up to more than the sum of the parts, that add up to a solution to climate change, even though if you pick them apart and attempt to measure them…they don’t appear to add up. And that’s important because we can’t get them to add up…if you look at what the IPCC says we need to stay below 2 degrees of warming, it looks like it’s impossible. Because if you don’t start somewhere and if you don’t start building efforts that get people engaged then you won’t achieve anything so it becomes self defeating.

The more I’ve worked with climate change and thinking about solutions, the more I’m tending to thinking about sustainability in it’s broader sense as opposed to direct action on climate change.

Even if people don’t really understand (the science) then give them things they can do as individuals and communities

Get people thinking about change first, and doing things that are new, getting used to the idea that change is necessary.

A farmers market gets people talking… in terms of carbon accounting it might look like nothing, but in terms of getting people changing what they do and thinking about what other changes are needed, I think it’s massive.

Climate Science Rapid Response Team

Joel Pett’s “What if it’s all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing” cartoon.

More SustainableLens on the work of climatologists and climate models: Naomi Oreskes, Andrew Tait.