The Emerging Nature of Participation in Multispecies Interaction Design

Abstract

Interactive technology has become integral part of daily life for both humans and animals, with animals often interacting with technologized environments on behalf of humans. For some, animals' participation in the design process is essential to design technology that can adequately support their activities. For others, animals' inability to understand and control design activities inevitably stands in the way of multispecies participatory practices. Here, we consider the essential elements of participation within interspecies interactions and illustrate its emergence, in spite of contextual constraints and asymmetries. To move beyond anthropomorphic notions of participation, and consequent anthropocentric practices, we propose a broader participatory model based on indexical semiosis, volition and choice; and we highlight dimensions that could define inclusive participatory practices more resilient to the diversity of understandings and goals among part-taking agents, and better able to account for the contribution of diverse, multispecies agents in interaction design and beyond.

P for Politics D for Dialogue

“…In response to both the above positions, Mancini and Lehtonen [50] have argued how participatory models demanding that human designers and nonhuman animal participants share the same understandings of and goals for design activities are fundamentally anthropomorphic. For the authors, such models inevitably underpin discourses and practices that dismiss and ultimately exclude the participatory contributions of agents who do not possess the capabilities to enter what the authors describe as symbolic, deferred, abstract conversations.…”

“…They point out how more-than-human participatory researchers [4] embrace a broader view of participation whereby both human and nonhuman agents are involved in the co-production of the shared worlds in which they live and operate. Thus, Mancini and Lehtonen [50] highlight the need for a broader and more inclusive participatory model that could adequately support ACI research by accounting for the diversity of multispecies participants and their diverse contributions to the design process. The question then arises as to what this broader and more inclusive participatory model might look like.…”

“…Advocating the development of more inclusive participatory design models, Mancini and Lehtonen [50] questioned the legitimacy of the constraint that design participants must share or pursue shared understandings of and goals for the design process they are involved in. The authors argued that, regardless of their capacities, participants engage with the design process based on their own understandings of the design context and activities, and motivated by their own goals; and it is through the interaction with other stakeholders that understandings develops and goals are pursued.…”

“…At the same time, participants' engagement is underpinned by fundamental drives (such as selfpreservation) and contextual motivations (such as internal and external stimuli) resulting both from evolution and previous learning [1]. Mancini and Lehtonen [50] point out how participants actively interpret and respond to one another through the filter of their own drives and motivations, and conditioning is only possible if contextual stimuli are sufficiently relevant to their drives and motivations, and if the rewards are sufficient to justify the effort required to respond. Of course, affording participants the ability to make choices as to whether and how to engage, and what to do under what conditions, is essential.…”

SoundJam 2018

“…Lehtonen [7] as a key factor in ACI design, and this feature is reinforced by Ritvo and Allison [11] who claim that ACI systems should be designed to mimic and augment the user species' natural behavioural tendencies. These examples also showcase the importance of volition and choice when designing sonic enrichment, factors emphasised by Mancini and Lehtonen.…”