Phase 3 | Generative Research | 03.05.2018
Process documentation for Interaction Design Studio II, taught by Peter Scupelli at Carnegie Mellon University. Team comprises of Zach Bachiri, Devika Khowala, Hajira Qazi, and Shengzhi Wu.
This week, we conducted two generative workshops. As we synthesize this data and finalize concept direction, we are also preparing for our generative research phase presentation this Wednesday.
Workshop 1
We conducted our first generative workshop on Tuesday and had 6 participants attend. I focused around stressful scenarios immigrants encounter, preferred states for those scenarios, and ways to get to preferred states.
The first part of the workshop was to brainstorm stressful scenarios encountered as a student immigrant. We provided various contexts (like school, home, supermarket, etc) to help spark memories. After 5 minutes of this, participants voted for the scenarios that most resonated with them. We then took the 5 scenarios that resonated with people the most and used them to begin the next part of the workshop.
We then took those 5 scenarios and discussed preferred states with the participants. Through this exercise, we learned about what good outcomes would look like for these types of scenarios and our eventual design intervention. And with the preferred states in place, we then let the participants brainstorm solutions to help get to the preferred state in each scenario, or “bridge the gap.”
Workshop 2
We conducted our second generative workshop on Thursday and had 12 participants attend. Using the scenarios generated in the first workshop, we used this as an opportunity to facilitate some creative problem solving. Both immigrant students and American students were invited to this workshop, forming pairs.
Each pair of students received a scenario and a role. First, they role played the scenario to gain a deeper understanding of the scenario and its pain points.
Next, the pairs were asked to create a solution that would make their scenario easier for both parties involved. They then shared those solutions back to the group, sparking deeper discussion about the problems and solutions. Finally, the pairs were asked to create another solution using a “magic device.” By removing all constraint, we were hoping they would be more creative and come up with solutions that could possibly be translated into some sort of AI solution. The pairs role played their scenario again to the group, but this time including their magic device. Some interested solutions arose, like special glasses that convert foods in a grocery store to an equivalent that an immigrant would understand and a holographic apartment meant to help communication between a landlord and tenant.
Synthesis
When synthesizing our research, we began by collecting all of the various solutions we had gathered across the two workshops. We began to group these scenarios and try to find themes in the types of solutions people were creating (or asking for). The big ones that emerged were non-verbal communication of information, asking for help (in person or from a digital assistant), increased cultural sensitivity from American, and the support of community. We then began to attempt to map some of these themes to potential design concepts. We left off thinking about a few solutions: an A.I. assistant that prompts immigrants in various scenarios or responds to questions, and A.R. device that can identify potential solutions to scenarios, a trivia game meant to train immigrants about cultural norms by using crowd sourced data, and an A.I. system that can simulate different scenarios to help immigrants better navigate social situations.
