Utilising social bonds between intergenerational relatives to gather soil moisture data

Abstract The GROW Observatory is a European-wide project led by the University of Dundee that focuses on the human and environmental challenges of adapting to climate change and saving the quality and variety of soil.

The Chatterbox research project focused on intergenerational relationships between relatives and their suitability to become participants for the GROW project. Specifically focusing on the notion of storytelling and the benefits that improving social bonds can have on the viewpoint of tasks.

Additionally, the project considers the bond relatives share and how ‘tacit-love’ could provide as a valuable insight for future research projects.

Author Keywords Research through design; iterative design; intergenerational relationships; tacit love; storytelling

Introduction The University of Dundee leads the efforts of The GROW Observatory (GROW), with growers, scientists and others passionate about the land participating in the European-wide project. GROW depends on

voluntary participants to harvest soil moisture data forming a central concern on the reliability and quality of citizen-generated data. To remain scientifically viable the data must be regularly gathered, the outcome balances on the participant’s willingness to perform a task. Currently, participants for GROW have a common interest in the project with most sharing GROW’s objective, they form a community of interest. This community regularly perform the task of soil moisture data harvesting because they believe in the cause.

The challenge for our project began by outlining triggers for participation outside common interest, how do you get someone with no obvious interest in GROW, or its objectives, to regularly participate in data gathering. This became the initial aim for our project with the resultant goal of producing a process that would encourage a different audience to participate in the gathering of soil moisture data.

Refocusing on triggers for participation proposed the idea of a target audience that were related, a real energy comes from people that already know one another. In particular, we focused on intergenerational relatives with an attention on the relationship grandparents and grandchildren share. As a group, we shared the interest of building on the bond between the grandparents and grandchildren and ideally change the way a younger generation might view visiting their grandparent as a chore.

Throughout the process our insights developed our understandings of the intergenerational bond between relatives. Using these to further our design process and reframe the research question: How can we encourage intergenerational relatives to perform a task regularly?

And How can we motivate engagement between a grandparent and grandchild?

Following the research through design process we decided to create a series of physical prototypes to develop recommendations for GROW in relation to the chosen audience. The quick prototypes would form a basis for discussion between the relatives and ideally improve their social bond. It was hoped that through prompted storytelling the users would host meaningful conversations and develop a stronger willingness to engage and participate with one another.

An experience prototype would serve as the final form of research through design with its results allowing us to conclude a range of recommendations for GROW on the engagement of a new audience. In conclusion, the project highlights the use of storytelling amongst intergenerational relatives to encourage interaction with a task.

Background Research through design tackles tradition methods of qualitative research within a visual context, the benefits of designing multiple prototypes allows for iterative attempts of understanding a problem. Theories produced through this method are diverse with a unique ability to manifest a result into a conceptually rich prototype. [14]

Design research considers the problems, questions, and obstacles that can be translated to a question. [5] The question forms a static reference when problems grow exponentially. A small problem might unearth more questions that could change the future or body of work. Throughout this project it was hoped that designing

through research would unearth not just what was expected from a research problem but the reality and scale of the problem when participants and users are involved. The project evolution from user input challenged the conditions surrounding our assumptions.

Prototyping physical experiences worked as a mechanism for the transfer of the project problem, generating a bank of knowledge which in our case took form in recommendations. For our project, the prototypes are a means to gather data on the interaction between intergenerational relatives without the intention of the prototypes becoming the applied solution. Our experience prototype generates specific knowledge to conclude a specific question.

The pragmatics of communication [2] inspired the exploration of an audience that already know one another. The audience would share know-how, tacit, knowledge and find greater ease in communicating. Using an iterative design prototyping process to highlight the distinctions between “Know-how” and “Know-that”. The phrase ‘tacit-love’ was coined through our efforts of explanation into how participants that already know each other share a common interest of keeping one another happy. We explain tacit-love as a desire to keep someone you care about happy before yourself, it justifies why someone would express visiting a family member as a task or chore but still repeatedly complete the task of visiting. From these desk research, we assumed that GROW would benefit from individuals that share a tacit knowledge and know-how. The tacit-love relatives share the similar goal of completing a task because they feel like they have-to, we hope to better the social bond between the participants and resultantly they will want to participate

with the task and one another. Thus, the data gathered will be richer and of higher quality.

The project also highlights the importance of play and the influence of serious-play [15] in producing a stimulating experience prototype. The process proves most beneficial when viewing the prototype as an experiment that aims to prove something not already known. We arranged for research participant’s to actively engage throughout the project gathering insights directly and challenging them against our expectations. The differences between our expectations and the realities throughout the project reaffirm the usefulness of participant engagement.

Our research looks to find a method to transform a task into a habit [4]. Specifically, looking to the habit-forming potential of our prototypes. Questioning how often the task is required and how it is perceived in utility.

The ludic design [3] approach is directly connected to what we are trying to achieve throughout this project. Using interactivity to resultantly produce a fun and experimental experience prototype. Ultimately we hope to use a mixture of these design approaches to better influence our prototypes.

Participatory Research Staying in line with the research project aim, we began to explore a variety of potential audience groups that shared little or no obvious interest in soil moisture data. It can be assumed that data collection of soil moisture is approached as a task by audiences that have no interest in GROW’s objectives. It can also be assumed that if an audience views their involvement in

the GROW project as a task the motivation to participate on a regular basis is lowered. Lack of personal interest becomes a barrier to participation.

From here, we considered different types of audiences and how their relationships are motivated from a need (task) to do something rather than a want (interest). Intergenerational family relationships became our target audience with a focus falling onto grandparents and grandchildren. We discussed the common assumption that grandchildren often consider visiting a grandparent as a chore. If we could find the motivations behind engagement involving our target audience, we would gain insight and knowledge that could be used to tackle GROW’s problem.

To challenge our assumptions, we constructed a survey and published it online. The survey asked for grandparents and grandchildren to answer three basic questions. The first: ‘What is your main method of communication between your grandparent or grandchild?’ This question was to gauge the functionality of the audience being used throughout the project. We assumed that if the majority answered face to face visits then they would be suitable candidates for the research prototypes. The second question asked: ‘How regular is this communication?’ This was to challenge the concept of a chore, if respondents answered every day then it was unlikely they deemed the experience as a task and would invalidate our assumptions. However, if the communication was less regular we could adopt the idea that the visit was seen as a task. Finally, we asked: ‘Do you talk about personal issues with your grandparent or grandchild?’ We added this question to test the idea of openness in

conversation and validate the impact storytelling could have.

The response was great with 133 individuals completing the survey. The results concluded that face to face visits were most common, the regularity of the visits was greatest between one every week to once every other week and the majority agreed they would talk about personal issues. The results are useful for the understanding of the audience; the participants have formed habits around visits serving as a positive insight for motivate and a trigger.

To recruit users from the target audience we produced posters and issued them digitally across social medias and throughout the university campus. Ideally we wanted to step out of our ‘first contact’ circles and have a stream of unbiased results. [Fig 3.] The posters proved successful and we recruited our first set of participants (Users 1 & 2).

The Probe Following on with the ludic design style [3] we decided cultural probes would be a good data gathering method. We wanted to construct a fun activity or gift that could produce qualitative insights on intergenerational conversation. It was important that the activities were not seen as tasks and the process was about serious-play [15], we wanted the box to provide entertainment and hook the users into wanting more. The purpose of the probe was to directly measure the success of certain tools to produce or increase conversation among intergenerational relatives. The cultural probe was to also serve as a reflection tool for the users, it was therefore important we asked for feedback on the probe’s ability to create

Figure 1. Cultural probe - Chatterbox

Figure 2. Cultural probe – Chatterbox in context with participant 5

new and exciting conversation. With this in mind, we named the probe ‘Chatterbox’ and produced colourful and exciting branding styles.

The cultural probe became our first designer-ly approach to learning about people. The prototype hosted a variety of activities, we created playing cards at the centre of every pack. 10 cards made up the set with 5 activity cards and 5 talk cards. We considered that if the pack was well explained to the participants and they understood the activities then it was more likely they would complete the probe. To clarify to the participants what was being asked the pack included an instructions card. It outlined the use of colour to differentiate what was an activity and what was a conversation topic. The conversation cards revolved around 5 questions designed to encourage new conversation topics. The expectations for these cards was fundamentally to provide new conversation that would cause the relatives to bond over memories or stories. We hoped the conversations would highlight common ground and bring them closer and presumed that if the participants bonded over a new conversation it would encourage them both to want to repeat the experience on a more regular basis. Using this experience as an example of improving social bonds to develop a reward style incentive. The value proposition of their experience is changed from just doing something because they know they should, tacit love, and turning it into an enjoyable activity.

The first activity was dominoes, trialing the gamification method of competition to encourage playfulness and enjoyment. The dominoes were drawn onto an

illustrator file and lasercut on layered card, although finished to a high fidelity it was obvious they were made for the project as the colours and branding matched into the probe. The playfulness of the game was to spark reminiscence and enjoyment. [Fig 4.]

Tea bags were added to the probe to share an experience, the blank label was attached to each and the participants were asked to write a memory or life motto on the label and talk about it over tea.

We found distractions as a common reason behind relatives across generations not fully engaging in conversation. To emphasize the idea of undivided attention we put a zip lock bag into the probe and asked the user to put a distracting gadget into it. Our examples were TV remotes and mobile phones. We hoped this would challenge the visual influence of having your attention drawn.

A map was also placed in the probe asking participants to mark places they have been, places they would like to go and a place that is special to them. This information could prove useful in the logging of points on a map, a potential prototype idea to encourage users to gather soil moisture data.

Finally, a door hanger was drawn up on illustrator and printed on thick card. Two were places in the probe, one for each participant. On one side a calendar was drawn, allowing users to mutually plan when they were going to see each other. The concept behind the door hanger was to hang something in clear view, presenting themselves as reminders.

Figure 4. Lasercut dominoes

Figure 3. Participant involvement posters

Tissue paper wrapped the individual activities inside the probe, [fig.2] we thought this would add a sense of importance and emphasize the gift-like experience for the users.

Overall the probes reality hosted similar results to our expectations, the participants agreed they shared new conversations and “got a lot of chat out of them”. However, both participants 1 and 2 found the question asking them to think of a memory they share as too vague and difficult to answer. It was concluded that the questions that were asked in a more specific manner created the most room for conversation.

They enjoyed the handmade aspect and appreciated the efforts of the lasercut dominoes asking to keep them to play again. When asked, what would they change a visual aspect of the colour contrast was raised as an issue, the elderly grandparent struggled to read the header white text on the light backgrounds of the cards and suggested an outline on these texts would help.

The Prompts We recognised prompting and notifications as a trend in getting a person to perform a task. [4] To integrate this into the project we produced a series of paper prototypes which linked to our previous storytelling and conversational building exercises from the probe. To generate insight we met participants 3 and 4 in Broughty Ferry and asked them to shuffle the cards and take turns asking each other questions. The questions were open-ended to allow participants to make up their own route. For example one question might ask: ‘What is your favourite view in Broughty Ferry?’ The

participants would then be asked to answer the question by walking to the location.

As a quick prototype they worked well considering the conditions of use, [Fig 5.] this prototyping test was timed around snowy conditions which made the walking less ideal and more strenuous. The findings that we took were of the participants enjoying not necessarily knowing where they were going to end up next. It kept a sense of adventure and it was nice to have an alternative to any usual routes. However, it was considered the paper prototypes could be upgraded to a digital prompt. Taking this advice, we produced a series of digital wireframes [Fig 6.] that could be introduced into the same scenario as the paper prompts. The Chatterbox app was internally tested and concluded that the motions were static and had a reverse effect on digital distractions, like your phone, we decided we needed then to meet in the middle and produce a prototype that would host a meaningful conversation through both a physical and digital means.

Experience Prototype The experience prototype became the last iteration in the series for our project. It considered look and feel, role and implementation for the user to provide an experience. [7] Although, it is important we communicate it as a method for research and not as an intended solution. Ideally we would continue the research project to include prototypes that tackle all aspects of the design and build on the knowledge we have gathered to produce a resolved integrated prototype. The feedback from the digital and paper prompts encouraged us to explore and merge both physical and digital with the use of screens within prototype. ‘Making ritual Machines’ [6] explores the value in using mobile phones in design material work as a method to create

Figure 6. Iterative Conversation Start app Wireframe

Figure 5. Paper prompt

fast tangible computing concepts. Repurposing and hacking existing hardware like mobile phone screens through altering their shape or clarity. We achieved this by using only part of the screen and encasing it within the checkpoint box. Instantly the screen appears to function as it should in a final integrated prototype.

The physical look of the checkpoints was a design feature added because of a comment made by participant 3. “I really liked the idea of not knowing exactly how I was going to get to the next point”. The directional arrows, which hold part of the screen space, emphasize the ideals in personalising your own route with being too vague. We made use of the multi touch sensor already built into the phone and asked participants to engage with the screen by touching and zooming the map visuals.

The Chatterbox checkpoints became our final prototype [Fig 7.]. The checkpoints would be placed throughout a trail of mixed terrain, this would be of interest to GROW as they ask users to gather soil moisture data from different areas. The participants were asked to bring along their smart phones meet at the first given checkpoint. For the purpose of our research we met them at this starting point. Prior to setting off we asked the participants to fill out a ‘before’ set of questions asking them how often they met at, if they walked together often and why, if they found conversations together could become repetitive and how they felt a walk benefitted them.

We arranged two separate days of field research with the final experience prototype, one located in Borgue, Kirkcudbright, Dumfries and Galloway. This area is extremely rural and is of closer relevance to the types of locations we presume GROW would find the most

beneficial qualitative soil data. The checkpoints were again distributed across areas of mixed terrain and participants 5 and 6 began their trail. These participants saw each other weekly and enjoyed walks together, they stated their love for the environment and specified their main motivations: “Gets me out the house, I love the Scottish scenery”. An interesting insight confirmed both participants liked to know what the other was “up to”. The initial feedback from these cards proved that the participants were ideal candidates for the project.

When arriving at the first checkpoint a QR code is displayed on the screen, the participants were shown how to scan the code with their phone and reveal a question that they would discuss until the next checkpoint. The screen visual changed into a map of their intended route and the navigational arrows gave them an indication of direction. Visual feedback we could note almost immediately was the harshness of light on the screen of the Chatterbox, as the whole project was run outside it was difficult to control the glare of sunlight.

The participants were met at the last checkpoints and were presented with the ‘after’ set of questions. The questions asked if they spoke of something new, if they enjoyed the experience, if the route was manageable and the duration between the checkpoints was timed well, if the navigational arrows helped and if there was anything they would change.

The participants found the walk enjoyable and quite easy going as they walk regularly. This raised an interesting point for our research on the participation of users with poor health or fitness. The route would not

Figure 7. Chatterbox Checkpoint in Borgue Location

Figure 8. Chatterbox Checkpoint in context with participant 5

be suitable for certain grandparents, it would therefore be important to continue the voluntary aspect of signing up to be a part of the GROW project. Perhaps to also include a detailed notice explaining the lengths and inclines of specific trails.

The participants responded positively to the directional arrows and highlighted the ability to “choose how we got to the next point” as a “nice touch”.

The second location was Broughty Ferry, Dundee. [Fig. 9]

Two separate pairs of participants (3 and 9, 7 and 8) were involved in the Broughty Ferry trail. The same conditions applied to these participants meeting at the first checkpoint to complete the before questions. The participants are closely related and lived not far from one another. Both sets seen each other regularly, 3 and 9 - every week, 7 and 8 - every day. All participants agreed they enjoyed walking with their main motivations being for the social aspects. This was an important time to note the experience prototype required the users phone to have cellular data to access the QR questions. [Fig 10.] This was a design flaw constricted by time and resource. Ideally a future iteration would be able to produce a large stream of questions without requiring data.

Both groups responded well to the prototypes but concerns were raised over the size of the screen and glare from the sun. Participant 8 suggested adding a shield at the top of the box to cast a shadow over the screen. This feedback emphasised the importance of user testing across a variety of days and scenarios. The second location of the experience prototype was tested

on a very sunny afternoon after months of dull, snowy weather. Internal testing did not recognise the flaws in the screen design as the conditions were vastly different.

Overall, all participants responded positively to the experience prototype with unanimous agreement that the questions improved a social bond, finding out something they did not know before the trail.

The enjoyment of the prototypes proves valued conversations aids social bonds and this can be considered as a trigger for participation. The users participate in a task because they want-to rather than feeling like they must.

Recommendations:

Our project has developed recommendations through its exploration of design prototypes tackling the involvement of an engaging storytelling journey. The project has followed an evolving research question that investigates: How can we use meaningful conversation to encourage intergenerational relatives to perform a task regularly?

The first recommendation comes from repeated feedback of the quality of the probes and early prototypes, the participants spoke highly of the “handmade dominoes”. We propose the inclusion of personalised gifts or handmade tokens to serve as memento of their involvement.

Another recommendation would be in the investment of improving the social bonds of the participants. It was stated that improving their social bond by encouraging

Figure 9. Chatterbox Checkpoint in context with participants 7 & 8

Figure 10. QR function

them to share stories and hosting periods for meaningful conversation allowed the task to be viewed as something enjoyable, a task they unanimously agreed to repeat. Evolving our Chatterbox questions throughout the project allowed a series of questions to filter through as the most stimulating for conversation. We found open and less specific questions to have too much uncertainty and participants responded worst to questions like: “Think of a memory you share?”, “What was the last nice thing you did for someone?”. Both these questions were highlighted as “awkward” and “difficult to answer”.

The want to personalise within the project reflected through the research prototypes, interactive activities like the map and walking direction formed a buzz around possibilities. We suggest that GROW produce activities that can be personalised but still hold enough structure to not produce “vague” outcomes, our participants want to know what they are doing but they also want to include their personal style.

The final recommendation to GROW is in the audience choice, although we have enjoyed working with our participants finding able bodied grandparents that can participate in a walk across multiple terrain proved challenging. Our final two participants (10 and 11) had to withdraw late in the process as their grandparent became unwell and their mobility was drastically reduced. We suggest a simple disclaimer of terrain and expected ability of the participants - if the multiple trail idea were to be introduced.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Nick Taylor and Dr Drew Hemment for their guidance throughout the study. We would also like to thank all the participants that were involved in the study and their families for making the arrangements possible.

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

Figure 11. Chatterbox in use across terrain types

References

1. Buchanan, R. (2001) Design research and the new learning, Design issues, pp 3-23.

2. Haberman, J. On the pragmatics of communication, (1998) Cambridge, MIT PRESS, pp 33

3. Gaffney, G. (2007). Ludic design: an interview with William Gaver. http://uxpod.com/ludic-design-an-interview-with-william-gaver/ Accessed 28th April 2018.

4. Eyal, N. and Hoover, R. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit forming products. New York: Penguin

5. Sato, K. (2004) Perspective of design research: in design. Collective views for forming the foundation of design research. pp. 7-35.

6. Chatting, D et al (2017). Making Ritual Machines: The Mobile Phone as a Networked Material for Research Products

7. Houde, S & Hill, C. (1997) What do Prototypes Prototype. Handbook of human-computer interaction

8. Buchenau, M & Suri, J. (2000). Experience Prototyping. New York, IDEO.

9. Boucher, A. (2016) The form design of the datacatcher: A research prototype. Goldsmiths University, London.

10. Bowers, J. (2012) The logic of Annotated Portfolios: Communicating the Value of ‘Research Through Design’. Interaction Research Studio. Goldsmiths University, London.

11. Koskinen, I and Zimmerman, J (2011) Design Research Through Practise: From the Lab, field, and showroom.

12. Zimmerman, J et al. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research.

13. Odom, W. et al. (2016). From Research Prototype to Research Product

14. Gaver, W (2012). What should we expect from research through design

15. Schrage, M.(2008). Serious play. Boston, mass: Harvard Business School Press