Conversation Piece.. or space

As part of setting up my design research, I will explore and try different methods for participatory design. Although some of these methods are new and likely to be executed quick and dirty, I hope to experience enough to determine what their role can be in my design research. The first method tried in these explorations is called ‘conversation piece’ and uses objects as a starting point for conversations with participants.

A conversation piece is an object whose unusual quality makes it a topic of conversation. As part of design research it can be used as a trigger to start dialogue on questions you might want to learn more of. And because the objects used are physical and tangible, participants can interact or even manipulate them directly. This quality might help to reveal insights on a deeper level, like tacit and latent knowledge.

Space as the object

In search of a way to experience this method first hand I tried to find connections to subjects within my research proposal. I want to learn more about spaces and how they are affecting creative collaboration. Often a creative collaboration contains of various forms of conversation between participants and could therefore have similar characteristics in relation to space as a ‘normal’ conversation. If I want to know more about the effect space has on creative collaboration or a conversation it should not only be the cause, but also the means for my conversation. I needed to make space the object to converse about, not just in.

Assuming people have previous experience in using ‘regular’ spaces (like small project rooms or classrooms) for creative collaboration and therefore find it more difficult to name their effect I wanted to explore alternatives. In a hunch to maximize the effect space has on the conversation or collaboration I looked for non regular spaces for creative collaboration. Spaces that make you feel awkward or are found to be extreme for this purpose, like elevators, stairwells or even toilets.

The goal of this activity was to get into some form of creative collaboration within a non regular space and start dialogue on the experience afterwards.

Tagging along

To make this work I choose to tag along with a fellow student. Her chosen object was a transparent bread-box in which participants could safely store their mobile phones. One of her objectives was to learn about what data people would want to keep private from i.e. governments. In other words, she was trying to find out what this magic box should keep save. I saw this search for ideas as a starting point for a (mini) creative collaboration with our participants.

In one afternoon we engaged in a total of three conversations with different participants in different spaces. Some conversations felt vibrant, others more distant. But all where insightful and animating for the both of us.

One of our participants shows us how she uses some of the safety features on her phone while discussing new ideas.
One of our participants shows us how she uses some of the safety features on her phone while discussing new ideas.

Reflections

For me these three conversations resulted in several insights on the activity of ideation and the use of space. By starting with the bread-box as the (first) conversation piece it was very difficult for participants to escape the ‘conversation mode’ and enter the ‘ideation mode’. Since the conversation was very focussed on the bread-box it felt weird or as a big step to suddenly discuss the space we where having this conversation in. Both these effects made it difficult to go in-depth on the role of space for this creative collaboration. But I did make some interesting observations during the conversations. Our first conversation, for example, took place in a corridor leading towards an emergency exit. Not a space where lots of people walk by, actually quite intimate. The participant was sitting on some steps when we could sit beside her on the ground. This setting made it very easy to have a conversation and level with each other (literally). In comparison, our other conversations took place in an open cafeteria-like social space where we sat down with participants at table’s overlooking the harbour. In these conversations I found the table to be an obstacle. It created a literal distance we needed to overcome in our conversation and creative activity.

Asking a participant if we could store his mobile phone into the bread-box to trigger our conversation.
Asking a participant if we could store his mobile phone into the bread-box to trigger our conversation.

In retrospect I notice people do not consciously use space. It might feel like a given, rather than something they can consciously influence and is certainly not top-of-mind.

This method can be used in different stages of the design or research process. Based on the goal of your research or design question it can be applied to find insights on everything from serendipitous stories to very practical goal-oriented solutions. This was what made this exploration difficult; what is my goal for this conversation and why? How are the possible results useful for my research and what kind of insights am I actually looking for? I found my designed activity to be too structured for unexpected stories or insights to emerge and too ‘small’ for actual creative collaboration to happen. The choice of space was mostly led by where we could find people to talk to and therefore didn’t completely met the criteria of a non regular space. I want to be more critical of this next time.

At this time I don’t think I tapped into the real potential of the conversation piece as a research method, but I am eager to gain experience in a more concrete setup.