Mapping Methods 2020

I thought I would talk about my experience so far of developing methods, and hopefully this will resonate with some of your experiences. In this talk I am going to briefly outline my area of research, and then discuss the questions around ethics that I have considered in designing methods.

Mention the SDF fund and France training.

In my PhD I am exploring the potential for wearable computers to be sites for feminist learning practices, specifically in citizen-sensing projects. I hope to explore new approaches to data literacy in the process.

[Slide 2 – citizen sensing picture]

Citizen sensing is a methodology for a kind of techno-citizenship. Basically, groups of people (i.e., citizens) get together to gather environmental data with sensors (i.e., they do sensing). This data is processed in order to bring about some kind of change in their communities. There are many citizen-sensing projects around the world, focusing on collecting data for a number of environmental issues like river pollution, sea levels, air quality or nuclear radiation levels, such as in the Fukishima aftermath. And there is also much variation on how this kind of techno-citizenship is conducted.

[Slide 3 – ladybird]

In a number of these projects, wearable sensing devices are deployed to gather data about the environment. I worked on a project where “ladybirds” were worn to collect data about air quality (inside the ladybird shaped enclosures are sensors that measure PM2.5 and Nitrogen Dioxide).

A feminist perspective of citizen-sensing (developed by ideas from Gabrys and Haraway), is that the wearables used in these projects are more than just technical, data-collection tools. They are part of an ecology of sensing and data practices that involve collective activism, situated knowledges, and also embodied perspectives – resonating with feminist pedagogical practices.

In order to carry out this research, I am working with a number of community-focused organisations. In Bristol (KWMC…) and London (Furtherfield…).

I am still in the early stages of my PhD project, and over the past year I have been exploring micro practices, to learn more about how I am going to carry out the research.

I have made tests through public workshops, which include a DIY wearable’s workshop at KWMC, and a co-organising a series of workshops and performances at the Cube, in Bristol. I have also been a participant in a number of related events.

These have informed my decision making. I know that I will use case-studies as my main research method. And within the case-studies, I am drawing from ethnographic methods, but I am also making wearable devices, and designing workshops in sensing and data practices.

[Slide 4 – wearable workshop]

Many of the questions or challenges I’ve come across in method design are based around this complex, knotty area of collaborating and carrying out research with people.

For example, I’ve come across a number of challenges to participation and inclusion:

Is it essential that spaces are accessible? We had an event in a venue that was not wheel chair accessible, and someone was excluded because of this. From this experience of exclusion I would say yes it is essential, but the practicality of this makes it not always possible
~
How do you exclude or include? I ran a wearables workshop for people in south Bristol, for women only. A guy from my work turned up who I knew pretty well, do we ask him to go home?
~
Who is a participant? To what extent are caterers or caretakers part of the research? At a conference I went to in Germany last summer delegates took turns to support the kitchen staff in cooking and cleaning, and the kitchen staff came to the talks after their shifts.
~
Who is making the practice? How do you define “authorship” in collaborative processes?

And then there are challenges around capturing the research process:

How do you capture the process in ways that does not reduce it and take away complexity?
~
What do you really need to capture? Do you really need three PhDs worth of data?
~
How do you capture in ways that does not invade peoples privacy?
~
Is an opt out form enough?
~
Can you capture without recording? I went to a workshop at Mozfest in October, and before it started, one the facilitators asked people to raise their hands if they didn’t want the audio recorded. As a participant I knew this would really impact the experience of the workshop. And I really liked how recording audio was not a given, and in the end wasn’t recorded.

I can’t say I have the answers, but there are a couple things I am doing to address these challenges:

Firstly I am exploring methodologies that support collaborative research. One framework I am interested in is Participatory Action Research.

I am also considering how theoretical frameworks resonate with these concerns. Theorists such as Puig de la Bellacasa discuss feminist approaches to science and technology. And I take shelter in theory that integrates notions of care in the consideration of technical development.

I have come to the realisation that all of these questions and challenges around the conduct of research are based on an ethics of care. My PhD is focused on feminist pedagogical approaches to technology – and in this context it is the ethics of care that jointly frames the theory and the conduct of methods.

[Slide 5 – quote]

In our first year at Goldsmiths we take a class in qualitative methods for social research. The lecturer from this class said that “ethics is not a hurdle to be jumped over, but it has an epistemological implication, and should be part of the design of methods”. At the time I didn’t really know what this meant, but it stuck with me for some reason. A year later, I understand that it is not just a case of working out what you are going to do (such as “these are my methods” and “this is my theory”). But, for me, designing methods is actually a process of weaving together theory and experiences to generate knowledge through ethics in practice.