Pervasive or Postcolonial? The Need to Decolonise Ubicomp

This week’s paper, ‘Ubicomp’s Colonial Impulse’ by Dourish and Mainwaring takes on the world of Ubiquitous Computing (ubicomp) and seeks to challenge many of the concepts behind the field by unearthing some of the colonial undertones embedded within it.

The paper starts by critiquing a common narrative within ubicomp – that the production of technological knowledge and ‘centres of innovation’ are unevenly distributed around the globe. Take for example HCI for development (HCI4D), a field of research that seeks to find solutions to problems in the developing world. Postcolonial critiques of HCI4D suggest a need for the field to consider the western perspective placed upon the creation of such solutions. Who decides what problems merit consideration? Where are “appropriate” solutions being envisioned? And what role does culture play in shaping the design process?

The concept of a unidirectional transfer of knowledge and technological innovation from global centres of power (cores/‘developed’ nations) outwards to areas where it is “lacking” (peripheries/ ‘developing’ nations) parallels the now controversial Modernization Theory Model that was popular during Imperial times.  This model provided a theoretical basis for a modernization paradigm that framed Western nations as the height of development, tasked with the responsibility of “raising” less developed nations “up to their standard”. Even in this model, technology and innovation were considered hugely influential in this process of apparent social progress.

The problem with this imagined outward flow within ubicomp (and indeed many other fields) is that it makes several assumptions about the “peripheries”, or passive “receivers”, of knowledge and innovation. Firstly, as is reflected in the very labelling of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations, it envisions a hierarchy, that developing nations are somehow lagging behind developed nations. In creating a hierarchy, this narrative also suggests that developing regions aspire to achieve ‘developed’ status but simply lack the imagination, innovation and ability to do so alone.

This “Logic of Lack”, as Dourish and Mainwaring call it, disempowers and denies agency to those from outside of these ‘global cores’; by suggesting a deficit of knowledge and innovation in the ‘peripheries’, a narrative emerges of “we know what you need, but you’re not fit to create it” – such ‘othering’ echoes Imperialist interpretations of “The White Man’s Burden”  and is dangerously reminiscent of colonial narratives of “civilising the uncivilised”.

 

The White Man’s Burden was a poem by Rudyard Kipling that warned about the dangers of colonialism from the perspective of the coloniser

In assuming this linear, evolutionary trajectory from developing to developed, the authors explain how within design everyone, regardless of context, becomes a “proto-user”; In essence, what is a problem for those in the developed core is assumed to be a future problem for those in the peripheries, and thus designing solutions for the core will one day directly translate into solutions for the peripheries.

However, reflecting the theoretical standpoints of much Third Wave Feminist and Cultural Imperialist Theory, Dourish and Mainwaring stress how such a “progressive” narrative overlooks the historical “locatedness” of technological design and ignores the privileging of the western viewpoint in such processes. By assuming ubiquitous function and usability, we overlook the highly complex role of culture in understandings, experiences and needs. (See Main, 2001 for an example of debate around cultural imperialism in ICT)

The role of culture in design is something that I have specific interest in. My previous research into Female Genital Mutilation has highlighted several key considerations for designing in the context of a deeply culturally embedded practice. Whilst the western narratives around FGM frame it as inherently abusive, a key element of my own research was a need to increase cultural awareness in order to better understand the role FGM plays in practising communities; in order to reduce stigma and hidden harm, there is a need to take on alternative perspectives and demonstrate an ability to listen when designing solutions. What may seem a straight-forward case of right or wrong to outsiders is decidedly more complex when viewed through the lens of those closest to it and thus any proposed solutions that fail to consider cultural context throughout the design process are inevitably destined to fail when deployed in the real world. (See Kalev, 2004  for an example of Third Wave Feminist arguments around FGM)

Whilst pockets of research within HCI more broadly seek to include and raise marginalised stakeholder voices in research (i.e. Feminist HCI and ICT for Inclusion), as raised by the authors of this paper, there remains a need for ubicomp to embrace polyvocality in design and to acknowledge the colonial impulses that geographically and historically shape the field. In acknowledging (rather than reducing) difference across space and place we stand more chance of designing translatable and sustainable solutions.

In my search for a case study that highlights how a lack of contextual understanding can create ineffective, and even troubling design I came across ‘Smiling makes us happier: enhancing positive mood and communication with smile-encouraging digital appliances’  by Tsujita and Rekimoto. The digital device, The HappinessCounter, detects and tracks facial expressions and essentially reminds the user to smile. It seems to suggest that by reminding those with depression to smile more, it may improve their mood. There appears to be a clear lack of understanding around the nature of depression and the resulting design is hugely intrusive, fairly useless and potentially harmful. “Let’s remind you regularly how sad you’re feeling and if you just remember to be happy you’ll soon be fine!”