The second method I tried in my explorations of different participatory design methods is called ‘design probes.’ A probe is often a package of an artefact and a corresponding task. They enable the participant to record specific events or feelings actively and in his own environment. Probes are usually used explorative and in the early front end of the design process. According to Sanders1., the purpose of these probes is to generate inspirational responses from people to better understand them and their personal context.
“Probes are explorative, design oriented and based on self-documenting. They aim at revealing users’ personal perspectives to enrich design and support empathy.”
Tuuli Mattelmäki 2.
To record these responses and to provide insight to the other participants and me as a researcher, I used a third method called ‘living atlas’. An atlas is a physical carrier in which connections between (research) questions to participants (in this case the probe tasks) are collected via a scenario created by the designer.
Space as the subject
The use of design probes is an existing part within the curriculum in which I teach. Still, it makes me curious to what extent it could help me with my own design question (or questions). Probes can be designed for different purposes: inspiration, information, participation, dialogue and generative. To experience the breadth of these goals, I chose to design not one, but a set of three probes, each based on a specific goal. These probes all cover the same subject: the spaces that students choose for their creative collaboration.
The design-probe study consists of three consecutive probes.
At the faculty we offer our students a number of different spaces to work in. In addition to the standard classrooms, there are also open spaces, a media lab, work places in corridors and small project rooms. In a week where they, as a team, needed to ideate on ideas and come up with a strong creative concept for an online platform a creative space to collaborate was essential. But which space do they choose for this?
The first assignment or task in my design-probe research started from this question and is called 📸 Snap it!. The purpose of this probe was both inspiration and information. To see where the teams collaborate creatively, the participants were asked to take pictures of these (empty) spaces. They were also asked to take a photo of the space while they were using it. While designers usually opt for a disposable camera when taking photos in probes, I looked for a more accessible solution and decided to let participants use their own mobile phones.
Secondly I am curious what considerations they have when choosing their creative space. How do they see, experience and use these spaces? Or in more general terms: What do students think of when they think about their creative space?
To collect ‘what’s on their mind’ and gain insight in what they think of when they think about their creative space, I designed a small questionnaire as the second assignment in my design-probe study and called it, rather appropriately, 🧐 Le Questionnaire. The purpose of this probe was to collect information.
The design probe study is presented in the box that is part of the third probe. The QR code led the participants to the first two tasks.
The assumption that, after experiencing these spaces, the students themselves also have strong ideas about what a creative space could (or should) bring them, made me enthusiastic to challenge them creatively. For this I used the third and final probe called 📦 The Box. The purpose of this probe was both participation and generative.
To elicit inspirational ideas from my participants I gave them the following design challenge:
“How might we .. create a space better suited for our creative collaboration?”
They where also given a box (artefact) packed with different materials, objects and tools. The (empty) box is meant to be their canvas and everything in it can be used to design the space. They can craft and play with materials to prototype a space that would better suit their creative collaboration. Finally, I asked them to include and share a short pitch in which they explain and substantiate their design considerations.
Living Atlas
One of the difficulties my students encounter while performing a design-probe study is that their participants are insufficiently motivated to commit themselves to the research. More than once their studies yield incomplete results because participants lose their attention and forget to perform tasks. This is certainly a risk when you ask participants to perform or keep track of multiple probes over a longer period of time. Thoughtful direction and keeping in touch with the participants during the study are therefore important skills for a designer.
To shape this direction and communication, I used a living atlas. I have designed a scenario to facilitate a temporary space in which action, reaction and possibly discussion can take place under my direction. The various probes have been the starting point for this. Within this scenario, I chose not to hand over all probes at the same time, but to make the next one available only when the previous one was completed. Although I showed them the (closed) box of the third probe at the start, they were only allowed to use it later. This made them enthusiastic for what was to come.
In total, the study had a lead time of two weeks. They received 3 days for the first probe. This made it possible to capture multiple creative spaces. After experiencing these spaces, they received the questionnaire as the second assignment. When finished they could ask for the final assessment and pick up their boxes.
It was important to me that the results became immediately visible to everyone. It not only gives a sense of achievement, it can also help others to remember or motivate them to perform the tasks. So in addition to this scenario, I have designed a virtual collaboration space as an instrument to both share the probes and collect the answers. The board gradually got filled with content and by rearranging and linking the individual content, connections could be made visible.
On top of communicating through the online space I created a WhatsApp group chat for urgent questions and to send them the occasional (positive) reminder or support.
Students where asked to collect all their results on a virtual collaborative space or living atlas.
Reflections
Reflecting on both methods, it feels like they complement each other very well (at least in my case). Design probes always have the risk of little response. It can be difficult to motivate participants to do the task and to get them to send the probes back. This is precisely where my designed scenario and instrument from the living atlas helped. In my approach to the students, I opted for a positive and engaging tone in both the atlas and the WhatsApp group chat. The use of emojis and appropriate GIFs had to make the whole look accessible and fun. As a result, they were really involved and continued to share ideas with me even after the study.
In retrospect, there are two considerations that I would like to take into account for a possible subsequent iteration. The data obtained from probes is always very subjective. In order to be able to interpret the results properly and to give myself the opportunity to ask about considerations, more dialogue must be created. This could, for example, be done via a debrief interview when retrieving the probe results, a sit down with the participants afterwards or (at the least) by using the chat features in the different tools.
Secondly, as a designer, I can be more critical of how individual probes might influence each other. Although the final probe intended to be evocative and generative, there is a risk that many of the practical findings from earlier (informative) probes might influence the outcomes. It could be interesting to see if without this set-up of consecutive probes the responses would differ.
The results can be found in the posts ‘Practical Matters Prevail’ and ‘Prototyping Spaces in Boxes’.
Sources:
1 Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N. (2014). “Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning”. CoDesign.
2 Mattelmäki, Tuuli (2006). “Design Probes”. University of Art and Design.