The Semiotics of Embodied Interaction… Semiotics and Phenomenology (and) Pragmatism

O’Neill, S. (2008) Interactive Media: The Semiotics of Embodied Interaction. London: Springer-Verlag.



“The cognitive theories from psychology, which tend to understand human beings as information processing units and phenomenological approaches, which turn towards the importance of the body and action without thought. An alternative strand of theory that is particularly relevant to our concerns with new media is that of semiotics, which tries to understand interaction from the perspective of signification and communication.” (p39)

Annotation
Here O’Neill begins to set out how semiotics is associated with a phenomenological (and even pragmatist) approach to understanding experience. Just as Ihde created a postphenomenology from a fusion of pragmatism and phenomenology, for me to create a visual communication phenomenological methodology the synthesising semiotic theory into understanding interactive experiences is crucial. 

The Aims of Interpretation… The Nature of Interpretation is to Construe

HIRSCH, E.D. (1976) The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

“As a first step, I propose that interpretive theories should not lump together the descriptive and the normative aspects of interpretation; the theorists should disengage the descriptive dimension of hermeneutics, which concerns its goals. For the goals of interpretation are determined ultimately by value-preferences, and interpreters do not exhibit more agreement in their than the generality of people. (…) Stated bluntly, the nature of interpretation is to construe from a sign-system something more than its physical presence. That is, the nature of text is to mean whatever we construe it to mean. I am aware that theory should try to provide normative criteria for discriminating good from bad, legitimate from illegitimate constructions of a text, but mere theory cannot change the nature of interpretation.” (p75)

 

Annotation:
Hirsch apologises for stating bluntly that, “the nature of interpretation is to construe from a sign-system something more than its physical presence.” (p75). In this is the act of meaning-making that a designer intends to communicate through the visual communication in the design – where the interpreted meaning can mean whatever the designer construes it to mean. The sign system they use is semiotics, the interpretation is controlled by the visual communication decisions in the design, and how it is interpreted can be understood if it is approached phenomonologically. This is where the hermeneutic circle is important as it reveals the specifics of the experience. This may be descriptive, but presented through a Visual Communication Phenomenological Methodology it can visualise the internalised. 

Toward a Phenomenological Understanding of Visual Communication… A Visual Communication Phenomenological Methodology

BARBATSIS, G. (2002) Toward a Phenomenological Understanding of Visual Communication. Journal of Visual Literacy, 22(1), pp1-18

“The dialogue, which takes place between makers and beholders absent to each other, is an achievement of encoding and decoding. Phenomenological understandings of visual communication illuminate, in the terms of dialogue, how this meaning-making work in the separate domains of production and reception is done.” (p7)

Annotation
How a phenomenological understanding of meaning-making in a dyadic relationship between human and computer can be revealed by visual communication, calls for a methodology. I am proposing such a methodology in the form of a Visual Communication Phenomenological Methodology. 

Heidegger vs Husserl: Phenomenological choices

In the course of my research towards developing a framework for a Visual Communication Phenomenological Methodology, I have now followed literature back to Nursing sources. Several recommended papers have been useful, and in turn they have also pointed to other possibly useful nursing sources.

Lopez and Willis (2004) help to clarify the different philosophical underpinnings to a Phenomenological study, and the importance of positioning the study clearly within one of the two philosophical schools of Phenomenology.

I'm basing my study on Moustakas' (1994) guidelines, but those are merely generic and non-partisan. As Lopez and Willis state "implementing a method without an examination of its philosophical basis can result in research that is ambiguous in its purpose, structure, and findings" (p726). So I will need to position my research methodology firmly within either the eidetic or hermeneutic schools.

Eidetic Phenomenology is descriptive of the phenomena, and is Husserlian in its philosophical roots. Hermeneutic Phenomenology is interpretive and owes its philosophical roots to Heidegger, a student of Husserl. Where the importance of choosing the philosophical school for a study resides is in how its findings are generated and used. Both schools deal with this differently. Hence the importance of not being generic in the design of the methodology, but philosophically specific.

In Eidetic (Husserlian) research it is important for the researcher to absolutely 'bracket out' prior personal knowledge and biases, to achieve "transcendental subjectivity". This results in the researcher holding in "abeyance ideas, preconceptions, and personal knowledge when listening to and reflecting on the lived experiences of participants" (p728). From these lived experiences features or essences that are common under Phenomenological scrutiny emerge that represent the phenomena's true identity. This is so so that a generalised description can be made, through a foundationalist approach, with a belief (reflecting scientific values) that these essences "can be extracted from lived experiences without a consideration for context" (p728).

In the Hermeneutic philosophical school (or even movement) its application has predominantly been in Theology, and its purpose is to go beyond mere descriptions of core concepts, or essences, "to look for meanings embedded in common life practices" (p728) to bring out what is normally hidden in human experience. Its focus therefore is on what humans experience rather than know within what Heidegger terms being-in-the-world. This situates the experience within a context of a life-world, which all sounds comfortably similar to what Dourish (2004) and Suchman (1987) discuss in part of their respective theses.

As Lopez and Willis discuss "Heidegger asserted that humans are embedded in their world to such an extent that subjective experiences are inextricably linked with social, cultural, and political contexts" (p729). In Hermeneutic Phenomenology its foundational aspect is on the "interpretation of the narratives provided by participants in relation to various contexts" (p729), meaning that unlike Eidetics, the context remains crucial to understanding through interpretation. A fundamental divergence in approaches between the two schools lies in the act of 'bracketing'. In Hermeneutic Phenomenology making any preconceptions on the part of the researcher explicit and explaining their use within the research has a long tradition. Absolute 'bracketing out' that prior knowledge is inconsistent with an interpretive approach. This is a crucial difference I need to build into MY methodology.

Finally Lopez and Willis summarise that an interpretative approach is "useful in examining contextual features of experiences that might have direct relevance to practice. Moreover, a critical hermeneutic framework can enable the researcher to bring to light hidden features of an experience that would be overlooked in a purely descriptive approach" (p734). They urge for careful consideration of which school to choose to inform the analysis. Naturally I feel my framework approach to the methodology is more interpretative, and that will be more useful within design (more on this in a future post).

References used:

DOURISH, P. (2004). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
LOPEZ, K.A., and WILLIS, D.G. (2004) Descriptive Versus Interpretive Phenomenology: Their Contributions To Nursing Knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), pp726-735.
SUCHMAN, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MPhil project proposal done

Amongst other things, over the last seven days I have been finalising the proposal for my project. I am quite excited by it, as it is a new framework. Here is my abstract that gives its gist…

"This particular research aims to establish the creation of a Visual Communication Phenomenological Methodology to explore the aesthetics of use from a Visual Communication perspective. This framework develops the desire for this discipline’s repositioning as an influence on Interaction Design, a sister design discipline. It also offers a qualitative methodology to support Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers to legitimise their work within the 3rd HCI paradigm using a Phenomenological Matrix. In this proposal I introduce this area of research, and set parameters of my research rationale. The research project will last four months, and will be the basis of my MPhil transfer document to continue onto the PhD. I identify a hole within the literature that my proposal will answer. I then go on to to explain the methods I will use, and the results I expect. Finally I discuss the potential impact of my proposed research, plus its limitations and initial weaknesses. This is in order to convince the reader that this research is both relevant, and it contributes new knowledge to an established area of research into the Aesthetics of Interaction."