population” tends to comprise
computer science students who happen
to be around and available. While
this is justified in some cases, maybe
we should be more explicit about
the extent to which our results are
particular?
• What we as HCI researchers
can achieve is only one step on the
road toward solving complex societal
problems. Starting from research
for the very particular, the process
unfolds significantly more and may
include contributions from many other
disciplines. How can we become more
aware of and understand our biases and
the limitations of our expertise in such
projects? How can we strive to inform
others of our results so that they can be
used (also in other disciplines)?
• How much are we influenced by
expectations in terms of impact and
generalizable results from funding
bodies? While research for the very
particular has obvious societal
relevance and impact on the group of
particular people we work with, it may
not always lead to results that can be
applied outside the particular case nor
have a large economic impact.
Endnotes
1. Bødker, S. Using I T to ‘do good’ in
communities? Journal of Community
Informatics 11, 2 (2015).
2. Olsen, Jr., D.R. Evaluating user
interface systems research. Proc. of the
20th Annual ACM symposium on User
Interface Software and Technology. ACM,
Ne w York, 2007, 251–258; https://doi.
org/10.1145/1294211.1294256
3. Stolterman, E. The nature of design
practice and implications for interaction
design research. International Journal of
Design 2, 1 (2008), 55–65.
4. Kvale, S. Doing Interviews. SAGE, 2007.
5. Gajos, K.Z., Wobbrock, J.O., and Weld,
D. S. Automatically generating user
interfaces adapted to users' motor
and vision capabilities. Proc. of the
20th Annual ACM symposium on User
Interface Soft ware and Technology. ACM,
New York, 2007, 231–240; https://doi.
org/10.1145/1294211.1294253
6. Mackay, W.E. and Fayard, A-L. HCI,
natural science and design: A framework
for triangulation across disciplines. Proc. of
the 2nd Conference on Designing Interactive
Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods,
and Techniques. S. Coles, ed. ACM, New
York, 1997, 223–234; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1145/263552.263612
7. Pape, T.C. and Thoresen, K. Development
of common systems by prototyping.
In Computers and Democracy - A
Scandinavian Challenge. G. Bjerknes,
P. Ehn, and, M. Kyng, eds. Avebury,
Aldershot, England, 1987.
8. Vines, J., Clarke, R., Light, A., and
Wright, P. The beginnings, middles
and endings of participatory research
in HCI: An introduction to the special
issue on “perspectives on participation.”
International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies 74, Supplement C (2015), 77–80;
https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhcs.2014.11.002
Olav W. Bertelsen is an associate
professor in the Department of Computer
Science at Aarhus University in Denmark.
While he spends most of his time as a union
representative, he also does research on
activism.
Susanne Bødker is a professor in the
Department of Computer Science at Aarhus
University in Denmark. She co-manages the
interdisciplinary Center for Participatory I T
and heads the recently started ERC project
on Common Interactive Objects. She does
participatory design, computer-supported
collaborative work, and activity theory.
→ bodker@cs.au.dk
Eva Eriksson is an assistant professor in
the School of Communication and Culture,
Department of Information Science, at
Aarhus University in Denmark, and a
senior lecturer at Chalmers University of
Technology in Sweden. Her research focuses
on interaction design in public-knowledge
institutions and the participatory design of
technologies for children.
→ evae@cc.au.dk
Eve Hoggan is an associate professor in the
Department of Computer Science at Aarhus
University in Denmark. Her most recent
research focuses on multimodal audio and
haptic feedback, novel interaction techniques,
and accessibility.
→ eve.hoggan@cs.au.dk
Jo Vermeulen is an assistant professor
in the Department of Computer Science at
Aarhus University in Denmark. His research
interests lie at the intersection of human-computer interaction, ubiquitous computing,
and information visualization.
→ jo.vermeulen@cs.au.dk
DOI: 10.1145/3289425 © 2019 ACM 1072-5520/19/01 $15.00
We should strive for the value in
the particular, not for the potential
generalizability of these techniques,
results, methods, and theories.
out of particular people’s lives and
ending a project must be a transitional
process in which researchers consider
relationships, feelings, ethics, and
the experiences of all the people
involved, as well as expectations and
dependencies of the results. Our
primary identity is to be researchers;
we need to both consider the
immediate results and give attention
and weight to the opportunities in the
sustained legacy [ 8].
Our suggestion: When setting up the
next project, make a thorough plan for
how to sustain knowledge and results
after the project is over. One way
to sustain the results is to empower
particular people to continue on their
own. This is why methods are needed
to transfer the knowledge and results
after the project’s conclusion. Further,
we suggest an iterative approach to
cumulation. Initiatives will likely fade
over time, but by iterating the process
with cumulative means and knowledge,
it is possible to create momentum for
new initiatives and regularly remind
the particular community that things
can be done differently. So, PD is
helpful not only when designing
with particular people but also for
sustaining the results both during and
after the project.
OPEN QUESTIONS
Finally, we conclude with four open
questions and considerations regarding
research for the very particular that we
would like the community to consider:
• How can researchers draw
research findings from the very
particular if they do not stand on
the outside to generalize? Should we
avoid being drawn into a personal
commitment that prevents us from
“looking out”?
• When HCI researchers aim to
generalize and (supposedly) design
for the general public, our “general