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. → [e-mail]

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. → [e-mail]

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. → [e-mail]

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. → [e-mail] 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