Our Technology on the Trail Workshop featured a talk by Norman Su from Indiana University titled The Case of Hunters in the American Midwest: Examining and Designing the Resonance of Artifacts in Nature. The talk was related to his similarly-titled upcoming paper, to be presented at CHI 2017.
Michael Horning from Virginia Tech served as discussant for the talk. Mike is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication with an interest in civic and information apps that help to support citizen engagement with news content. He had an up-front role in making comments and leading discussion for the talk, but also a behind-the-scenes series of communications with Norm about the paper.
A few highlights from their email exchange (posted with permission from Norm and Mike) that focused on the impact of constantly evolving technologies on hunters, particularly their interactions with each other. From Mike:
What I find interesting about your observations is that your findings suggest that users may actually live within worlds of constantly shifting ethoses, depending on the terms dictated by the hunting tradition. Do you agree? It seems to make the design challenges even more difficult.
I think it is indeed interesting that we are not only talking about multiple users, but how each user themselves may “adopt” different practices reflecting different interpretations of fair chase. I suppose, at a fundamental level, it is perhaps just fun for hunters to don these different caps when hunting. Most hunters I encountered regularly hunted in multiple weapon/species seasons.
Technologies certainly alter the interactions between hunters and their prey. As Norm noted in his talk, with modern technology you can hunt and kill animals that don’t even know you’re there. Mike connected that interaction with the “fair chase” notion introduced in Norm’s paper:
I see some parallels between your observations and Harrison and Dourish’s observation about Space and Place, where “space is the opportunity, and place is the understood reality.” Jacques Ellul’s concept of technique is perhaps also relevant here with the notion that every technological innovation alters in some way how we respond to the physical world either socially or cognitively. I am wondering if the term “fair chase” is self imposed by users or by traditions and technologies (in other words the places) that they find themselves in. I think this too has some interesting implications for design.
I admit to being ignorant of Ellul, but I think certainly we can talk about space and place–in particular, I think use of particular technologies provides a different “filter” into the physical place. It might also be interesting to talk about technologies like weapons in terms of a medium that alters our perception of reality (e.g., a recurve bow filters our view of the world/opportunities to one within close proximity).
Mike identified some specific examples from his “youth” that highlighted some of the issues related to cheating and fair chase:
…you observe that hunters often rejected what I would call modern innovations in hunting technology (cross bows, drones, trail cams). I’m old enough to remember when muzzleloader hunters who were flintlock purists rejected modern inline muzzleloaders and when compound bows were considered “cheating” by recurve shooters. I bring these up as examples of technologies that began as unethical and have more recently moved to mainstream. It suggests to me that some of the “newer” innovations may as well. One question this may raise for HCI is the extent to which we should trust users with their own assessments, given that those attitudes may be more generational/experiential than cultural. Beyond hunting, I think this may also raise a larger question for other forms of outdoor sport as well. Many hikers, for example, may reject certain changes that future hikers eagerly embrace.
I think there is also the conundrum of how to resolve the age old cycle of rejecting the new, eventual adoption of the new, and now the new becomes the old. The resolution is difficult in terms of design because I personally think design can’t dismiss these snapshots of admonishment, but at the same time, as you said, we also need to realize that assessments often become outdated.
At the heart of this debate seems to be values, and the consideration of values on the design process. I agree with Norm that resolution is difficult in terms of design, but there are certainly ways that design can account for the tensions between changing technologies and human reaction.
Mike brings up one way that this can be addressed, through value sensitive design:
You also mentioned the theme of moving beyond value sensitive design. I think this is an interesting and important question. I would look forward to the discussion that comes from it. I could see this also being a good starting point for smaller group discussions during the talk. I thought about this issue as I read your interviewer’s comments. While their concept of fair chase resonated with my own experiences, you mentioned that the hunters acknowledge that they were not paragons of virtue. It does raise the question of whether value sensitive design is giving us a comprehensive view of users or more of their reflections on their ideal types of users. And if it isn’t accurate or is limited what are we missing? Does a hunter, for example, who has not seen any success after two weeks of hunting give up on his/her concept of a fair chase and pursue less approaches? How can we design experiences that help hunters maintain their ideals?
Ideal vs what is done in practice is interesting to consider. I might argue that perhaps hunters need to see that living up to an ideal is difficult but should nonetheless be aware of what that ideal is. It reminds me almost of something like what many religions preach that we should try to seek an unreachable ideal.
Mike closes by circling back to the core tension between people with different values, and hints at similar tensions in other Technology on the Trail domains.
at two points in your paper you discussed the design of what I’ll call restrictive or limiting designs. The first was related to technically mediated experiences that limit capabilities and power relationships with nature. Near the end of the paper, you discuss designs that address unethical behavior. This seems like an observation that may get at the heart of this tension that exists between the desire to commune with nature and the tendency to see technologies as intrusive on that experience. Perhaps users may be more willing to adopt technologies that create additional challenges or that in some way intensify their struggle with nature. Such technological designs wouldn’t violate the norms of fair chase or be seen as “cheating” in other contexts (e.g. hiking). I think it might be worth thinking about what designs that “limit” look like and how we go about identifying requirements for such a design.
Norm closes with:
I think if we create designs, we might ask how we can cater to people who only want to hunt on weekends vs those who basically live in large private lands for hunting.
Certainly there are similar tensions between thru-hikers and day-hikers on the Appalachian Trail and similar hikes, as well as the tensions between hikers and people who live in the towns along a trail. Mike led an activity at the workshop that identified over 30 different roles for people on trails, many with overlapping values but many with values that lead to conflicts, too. All too often, design focuses on the target users, but one lesson from this exchange is the need to consider the great many stakeholders that are impacted by the introduction of any new technology–particularly in places where people often go to escape technology.